[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10514-10560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-798]



[[Page 10513]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating 
the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct 
Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10514]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2008-008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AU53


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule 
Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a 
Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population 
Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we or us), hereby 
establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States 
(U.S.) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of 
Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, the NRM DPS is no longer an endangered or 
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The NRM DPS has exceeded its 
biological recovery goals, and all threats in the foreseeable future 
have been sufficiently reduced or eliminated.
    The States of Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) adopted State laws 
and management plans that meet the requirements of the Act and will 
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In 
2007, following a change in State law, Wyoming drafted and approved a 
revised wolf management plan (Wyoming 2007). We have determined that 
this plan meets the requirements of the Act as providing adequate 
regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered 
wolf population into the foreseeable future. Our determination is 
conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law (W.S. 11-6-302 et 
seq. and 23-1-101, et seq. in House Bill 0213) being fully in effect 
and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming 
statutes. If the law is not in effect (discussed in more detail below) 
within 20 days from the date of this publication, we will withdraw this 
final rule and replace it with an alternate final rule that removes the 
Act's protections throughout all of the DPS, except the significant 
portion of the gray wolf's range in northwestern Wyoming outside the 
National Parks.

DATES: This rule becomes effective March 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at our Montana office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. Call 
(406) 449-5225, extension 204 to make arrangements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena 
office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204. 
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family 
(Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) (40-175 
pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the 
NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh 
up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves' 
fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure 
white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the U.S., they poisoned, 
trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread species to be 
eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 
1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were eliminated 
from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern 
Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally 
live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 
10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been 
substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
(Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2007, Tables 1-3). Packs 
typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) and defend these 
areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by 
resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become 
regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, 
other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover 
large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to 
join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied 
habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 11-17).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, 
pp. 243-4; Service et al. 2007, Tables 1-3). Females and males 
typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may annually produce young 
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April 
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive 
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM 
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability 
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure 
is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be quickly 
replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be reared 
by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 
Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf 
populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very 
high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe 
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if 
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 
been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, 
pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. 
(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered, 
including the NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus), the eastern timber 
wolf (C.l. lycaon) in

[[Page 10515]]

the northern Great Lakes region, the Mexican wolf (C.l. baileyi) in 
Mexico and the southwestern U.S., and the Texas gray wolf (C.l. 
monstrabilis) of Texas and Mexico (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). In 
1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the 
gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the 
conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray 
wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, critical habitat was 
designated in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. On February 8, 2007, 
we established a Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed it from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052).
    On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray 
wolf under section 10(j) of the Act including the Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the 
Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 
1994). These designations, which are found at 50 CFR 17.40(i), assisted 
us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and 
in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised 
these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this 
recovered wolf population in States with Service-approved post-
delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 
4270, January 28, 2008). The revisions are at 50 CFR 17.84(n).
    The NRM wolf population is a metapopulation comprised of three core 
recovery areas. It has a range (wolf breeding pairs, wolf packs, and 
routine dispersing wolves) that encompasses all of Idaho, most of 
Montana and Wyoming, and parts of adjacent States (Service 2005, p. 1-
2). It achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the 
end of 2000 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). The temporal portion of the 
recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and 
distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the third successive 
year (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). To meet the Act's requirements, 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post-delisting wolf 
management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms would 
exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 2004, the Service 
determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were 
adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would 
be maintained above recovery levels (see Recovery section). However, we 
determined the 2003 Wyoming legislation and wolf management plan 
(Wyoming 2003) were not adequate to assume that Wyoming's portion of 
the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels 
(Williams 2004). Wyoming challenged this determination, but the Federal 
District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. 
Wyoming 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision, and on April 3, 2006, 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision 
(442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the 
Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
(WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by establishing a 
NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced 
a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 
State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal 
District Court (State of Wyoming, et al. v. USDOI, CA No. 06CV0245J). 
Wyoming has indicated that they will deem the claims in the pending 
litigation settled and will request that the court dismiss the 
litigation upon publication of this final rule by February 28, 2008 
(Freudenthal 2007b).
    On February 8, 2007, we proposed to designate the NRM DPS of the 
gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 
6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal 
noted that the area in northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks 
(i.e., YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller Memorial 
Parkway) would only be delisted in the final rule if adequate State 
regulatory mechanisms were developed. On July 6, 2007, the Service 
extended the comment period in order to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming 
wolf management plan and State law that we believed, if implemented, 
could allow the wolves in northwestern Wyoming to be removed from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 
16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan 
(Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then determined this plan provides adequate 
regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered 
wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1-2). Our 
determination was conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law 
being fully in effect and the wolf management plan being legally 
authorized by Wyoming statutes. The plan automatically goes into effect 
upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming Secretary of State 
that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 
law have been met (W.S. Sec. Sec.  23-1-101 et sec.; discussed in 
further detail in Factor D below) (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 1-3).
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 
2003 reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the 2006 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 
2006), the 12-month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 
43410, August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to 
designate the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to 
indicate that listing any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any 
DPS of these taxa may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS 
provision of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding 
the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the 
Act (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). Under this policy, three 
factors are considered in a decision regarding the establishment and 
listing, reclassification, or delisting of a DPS. The first two factors 
determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS--(1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a 
DPS. Then the third factor, the population segment's conservation 
status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or 
threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS

    We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated 
for DPS status based on discreteness and

[[Page 10516]]

significance as defined by our DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an 
artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade (e.g., road or highway) 
boundary to be used as a boundary of convenience for clearly 
identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and 
Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. Specifically, the DPS 
includes that portion of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 
north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south 
of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and 
Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of 
Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, the NRM DPS includes that 
portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The center 
of these roads is deemed the border of the NRM DPS (See Figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE08.025

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS 
was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2006 (Service et 
al. 2007,

[[Page 10518]]

Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did not 
persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs from 
2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) through 
2006 (Service et al. 2003-2007, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press). 
Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we used the 
2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 
ANPR (71 FR 6634). Wolf packs have been documented in Montana, Idaho, 
or Wyoming so we include these three States in the DPS.
    Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the 
boundaries for the NRM DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances 
of over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 
2005 (Jimenez et al. in prep.). These data indicate that the average 
dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd 
and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez et al. in prep; Thiessen 2007, p. 
33). We determined that 300 km (190 mi), three times the average 
dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for unusually long-
distance dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories (Jimenez et 
al. in prep., Figure 2 and 3). Only 10 wolves (none of which 
subsequently bred) have dispersed farther outside the core population 
areas and remained in the United States. None of these wolves returned 
to the core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only 
dispersal from the NRM wolf packs to areas within the United States was 
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine 
the appropriate NRM DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada 
were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal distance 
because the distribution of suitable habitat and wolves and level of 
human persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the 
U.S., potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average 
dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from 
existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated 
a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support 
intermittent additional pack establishment from the core recovery areas 
given the availability of patches of nearby suitable habitat (Service 
2005, p. 1-2). Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not 
be applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, 
pp. 13-16).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western 
U.S. (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-30) by 
comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas 
currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent 
areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and 
predictions of those models (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et 
al. 2006, p. 32; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) were similar in many 
respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 
characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant 
year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers 
of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic 
sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see 
Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf 
habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in 
northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three 
areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf 
population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf 
breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 
Service et al. 1999-2007, Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3). The models indicate 
little habitat is suitable to support wolf packs within the portion of 
the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, 
Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah (See Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries 
of the NRM DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and 
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540-541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations 
during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 
2007, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and 
croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high 
desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This 
unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of 
livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock 
and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf 
behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to human-caused 
mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the 
distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a 
broad boundary separating the NRM DPS from both the southwestern and 
midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible 
wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the 
western U.S.
    We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small 
portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because--(1) These 
areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf 
population and routinely used by dispersing wolves; (2) lone dispersing 
wolves have been documented in these areas more than once in recent 
times (Jimenez et al. in prep.); (3) these areas contain some suitable 
habitat (see Factor A); and (4) the potential for connectivity exists 
between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat 
in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS. 
If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat suitability 
models suggest these nearby areas would likely be more connected to the 
core recovery areas in central Idaho and northwestern Wyoming than to 
any future wolf populations that might become established in other 
large blocks of potentially suitable habitat farther beyond the NRM DPS 
border. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would 
isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the NRM DPS from other large 
patches of suitable habitat to the west or south (Carroll et al. 2003, 
p. 541).
    Although we have received reports of individual wolves and wolf 
packs in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 
7-13), agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Intervening 
unsuitable habitat makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM 
DPS have dispersed to the North Cascades in recent history. However, if 
wolves dispersed into this area, they would remain protected by the Act 
as endangered because it is outside of the NRM DPS.
    We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS 
because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2) 
expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal 
distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only 
unsuitable habitat and does not affect the distinctness of the NRM DPS. 
Although including all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including 
portions of the Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do 
not consider these areas to be suitable wolf habitat because of their 
size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing wolves. 
Oakleaf et al. (2006,

[[Page 10519]]

pp. 558-559) chose not to analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming 
because they are fairly intensively used by livestock and are 
surrounded with, and interspersed by, private land, making pack 
establishment and persistence unlikely. While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 
541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas were suitable 
habitat, the model predicted that under current conditions these areas 
were largely sink habitat and that by 2025 (within the foreseeable 
future) they were likely to be ranked as low occupancy because of human 
population growth and road development.
    We chose not to extend the NRM DPS border east beyond Montana and 
Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of 
gray wolves from the NRM. In addition, the available information on 
potentially suitable habitat indicates that Colorado and additional 
areas of Utah to the south and west of the NRM DPS include large areas 
of potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 
541). The current distribution of wolf packs in the NRM wolf population 
encompasses most of the suitable habitat, that area is surrounded by 
unsuitable habitat, and the nearest other blocks of suitable habitat 
are far beyond the expected dispersal distance of wolves that might 
form new breeding pairs. Therefore, we concluded that a smaller NRM DPS 
that contains the core recovery areas and the adjacent areas of largely 
unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, but 
that excludes contiguous blocks of potentially suitable habitat to the 
west and south that are outside the routine wolf dispersal area is 
representative of the current and future status of the existing NRM 
wolf population and consistent with our DPS policy.

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) Is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern 
edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the 
western edge of the WGL DPS core wolf population (eastern Minnesota) 
and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat 
(see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS border is about 724 km 
(450 mi) from the nonessential experimental populations of wolves in 
the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of unoccupied marginal or 
unsuitable habitat separating them. No wild wolves have been confirmed 
west of the NRM DPS boundary (although occasionally we get unconfirmed 
reports and 2 wolves were killed close to that boundary). While one 
dispersing wolf was confirmed east and one south of the NRM DPS 
boundary, no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from 
other U.S. wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the 
NRM DPS.
    Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual 
travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166-
167; Ream et al. 1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; 
Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Jimenez et al. in 
prep.; Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM 
wolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; 
Jimenez et al. in prep.; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 10 of over 200 
confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been 
over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core recovery areas (Boyd and 
Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Undoubtedly many 
other dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 
30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been radio-collared. All but 
two of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the 
NRM DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form packs 
or breed in the U.S. (Jimenez et al. in prep.).
    The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond 
the border of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along 
Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. Video footage 
of a black wolf-like canid taken near Walden in northern Colorado in 
early 2006, suggests another dispersing wolf may have traveled into 
Colorado. The subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. 
Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was found 
along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed 
it was a wolf that had dispersed from the GYA. We expect that 
occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse between and beyond the 
core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into 
States adjacent to the NRM DPS. However, pack development and 
persistence outside the NRM DPS is unlikely because wolves that 
disperse as individuals typically have low survival (Pletscher et al. 
1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is limited and distant (Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541) from the NRM DPS.
    No connectivity currently exists between the NRM, WGL, and 
Southwestern gray wolf populations, nor are there any resident wolf 
packs in intervening areas. While it is theoretically possible that a 
lone wolf might traverse over 644 km (400 mi) from one population to 
the other, movement between these populations has never been documented 
and is extremely unlikely because of both the distance and the large 
areas of unsuitable habitat between the populations. Furthermore, the 
DPS policy does not require complete separation of one DPS from other 
populations, but instead requires some ``marked separation.'' Thus, if 
occasional individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the 
NRM DPS could still display the required discreteness. Based on the 
information presented above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves 
are markedly separated from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.
    Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf Populations--The DPS 
policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the 
boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of 
exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the 
countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and 
Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 
Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 
Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by 
Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian 
provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, 
Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to 
recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). When delisted, States in the NRM DPS 
would carefully monitor and manage to retain populations above the 
recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the 
U.S.-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the NRM DPS due to 
the difference in control of exploitation, conservation

[[Page 10520]]

status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine that a population segment is discrete, we next 
consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon 
to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may 
include, but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) Persistence 
of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or 
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; 
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/
or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 
Below we address factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the 
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
wolves, the NRM has among the highest diversity of large predators and 
native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological 
interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, 
and vegetation (Smith et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves 
share habitats with black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears 
(U.arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx 
canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes 
(Vulpes vulpes), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher 
(Martes pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and 
diverse assemblage of native prey include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule 
deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 
moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep 
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn 
antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the 
GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to unique 
dramatic and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in 
YNP. While these effects likely still occur at varying degrees 
elsewhere, they are increasingly modified and subtle the more an area 
is affected by humans (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, 
pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, 
p. 2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to 
be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and competition with 
other native ungulates in YNP. These complex interactions may increase 
streamside willow production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 
755), that in turn can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds 
(Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes 
also may be occurring with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is 
providing a year-round source of food for a diverse variety of carrion 
feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). 
The wolf population in the NRM has extended the southern range of the 
contiguous gray wolf population in western North America nearly 400 
miles (640 km) into a much more diverse, ecologically complex, and 
unique assemblage of species than is found elsewhere within occupied 
wolf habitat in most of the northern hemisphere.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Wolves once lived 
throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most 
of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The 
loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in 
the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15-degree 
latitudinal or over 1,600-km (1,000-mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains 
between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap 
were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts, such as 
behavioral changes in elk that reduced browsing pressure and allowed 
increased willow growth in riparian areas that can then support beaver 
or nesting song birds, would occur in the NRM, most noticeably in the 
most pristine and wildest areas (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; 
Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite 
and Smith in press, p. 1-6).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, 
recovery in the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to 
the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The 
NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 
3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and currently 
constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 States.
    We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. 
Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, 
it is a valid DPS. The conservation status of the DPS is discussed 
below (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section).

Recovery

    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et 
al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was 
approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 
1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are 
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other 
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on 
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There 
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may 
be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or 
more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have 
been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the 
threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust 
enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In 
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process 
requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to re-establish and maintain 
viable populations of the NRM wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) in its 
former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). The revised 
recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) specifies a recovery criterion of a 
minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite 
sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 
3 successive years in each of 3 core recovery areas--(1) Northwestern

[[Page 10521]]

Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church 
River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly 
Federal, lands), and (3) the YNP area (including the Absaroka-
Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf 
establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, 
but that connectivity between them be encouraged. However, no attempts 
were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery 
areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, p. 1-
15, 16; Service 1999; p. 2). The recovery plan states that if 2 
recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive 
years, the gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to threatened 
status, and if all 3 recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding 
pairs for 3 successive years, then the NRM wolf population can be 
considered fully recovered and can be considered for delisting.
    The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) on wolf 
reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of 
the recovery goals because we were concerned that the 1987 goals might 
be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). The Service conducted a 
thorough literature review of wolf population viability analysis and 
minimum viable populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf 
populations, surveyed the opinions of 43 wolf experts, of which 25 
responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM 
wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's EIS and 
in a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and 
Carbyn 1995, p. 26-38). Our analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery 
goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were 
warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf 
distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We agree with Fritts and 
Carbyn (1995, p. 26) that ``Data on survival of actual wolf populations 
suggest greater resiliency than indicated by theory'' and theoretical 
treatments of population viability ``have created unnecessary dilemmas 
for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population 
size''. Based on our analysis and peer review comments, we concluded 
that ``Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of 
subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should 
have a high probability of long-term persistence'' because such a 
population would contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing 
packs distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas to 
be viable for the long term (Service 1994, pp. 6:75). A population at 
or above this size would contain at least 30 successfully reproducing 
packs and ample individuals to ensure long-term population viability. 
In addition the metapopulation configuration and distribution 
throughout secure suitable habitat would ensure that each core recovery 
area would provide a recovered population that would be distributed 
over a large enough area to provide resilience to natural or man-caused 
events that may temporarily affect one core recovery area. No wolf 
population of this size and distribution has gone extinct in recent 
history unless it was deliberately eradicated by humans (Boitani 2003, 
321-331). We further determined that a metapopulation of this size and 
distribution among the three core recovery areas within the area we now 
identify as the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would 
fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We surveyed 
86 biologists, of which 50 responded, with expertise in wolves and 
population viability from North America and Europe for their 
professional opinions regarding a wide range of issues related to the 
NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, 
including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs 
2002, p. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great 
diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery 
goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate 
than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a 
viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought 
connectivity (either natural or human-facilitated) was important to 
maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population 
viability. Reviewers also recommended other concepts/numbers for 
recovery goals but most were slight modifications to those we 
recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78%) 
supported our 1994 conclusions that a metapopulation of at least 30 
breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves would provide for a viable wolf 
population, they also concluded that wolf population viability was 
enhanced by higher (500 or more wolves) rather than lower population 
levels (300) and longer (more than 3 years) rather than shorter (3 
years) demonstrated time frames. The more numerous and widely 
distributed a species is, the higher its probability of population 
viability will be. However, the Act requires us to ensure a species is 
no longer threatened or endangered not that its viability would be 
theoretically maximized. A wolf metapopulation of at least 30 breeding 
pairs and at least 300 wolves ensures it will remain viable and 
recovered. A slight majority indicated that the 1987 recovery goal, of 
only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female capable of 
breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas, may be viable, 
given the persistence of other small wolf populations in other parts of 
the world. The results of previous population viability analysis for 
other wolf populations varied widely, and similar to our 1994 analysis, 
reviewers concluded that theoretical results were strongly dependent on 
the variables and assumptions used in such models and conclusions often 
predicted different outcomes than actual empirical data had 
conclusively demonstrated. Based on that review, we reaffirmed our more 
relevant and stringent 1994 definition of wolf breeding pairs, 
population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75).
    We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs 
because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully 
raise pups. We use ``breeding pairs'' to describe successfully 
reproducing packs (Service 1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002, p. 7-8; Mitchell 
et al. in press). Breeding pairs are only measured in winter because 
most wolf mortality occurs in spring/summer/fall and winter is the 
beginning of the annual courtship and breeding season for wolves. Often 
we do not know if the specific pack actually contains an adult male, 
adult female, and two pups in winter; however, pack size has proven to 
have a strong correlation with breeding pair status and by simply 
knowing the size of wolf packs in mid-winter we can reliably estimate 
the number of breeding pairs (Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. in press). 
In the future, the States will be able to use pack size in winter as a 
surrogate to reliably identify each pack's

[[Page 10522]]

contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to 
better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf 
population recovery.
    We have also determined that an essential part of achieving 
recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and 
individual wolves among the three States and the three core recovery 
areas. A wolf metapopulation that is equitably distributed among the 
three core recovery areas provides each area with enough successfully 
reproducing packs and individuals to withstand any threats to it and to 
allow for local adaptation to the ecological conditions within each 
area (e.g., bison in the GYA, white-tailed deer in northwestern 
Montana, or steep terrain of central Idaho). In addition, a minimum 
number of successfully reproducing packs and individual wolves in each 
core recovery area ensures a consistent strong source of dispersing 
individuals between and among the three recovery areas to consistently 
occupy suitable habitat, form new or join existing packs, and provide 
the opportunity for genetic and demographic mixing within the 
population to maintain its viability and resilience. Like peer 
reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery and 
long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its distribution as 
well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. 
While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-distributed 
population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a 
disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves 
is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 
recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM.
    Following the 2002 review, we began to use States, in addition to 
recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et 
al. 2003-2007, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each 
contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery 
areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be conserved by 
equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States. 
This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation 
fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one 
State might assume all of the responsibility for maintaining the 
required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared core 
recovery area. State regulatory authorities and traditional management 
of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State basis. 
Management by State would still maintain a robust wolf population in 
each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural 
refugia from high levels of human-caused mortality (e.g., National 
Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those 
areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of 
dispersing wolves in each State.
    Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange 
between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses 
solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery 
areas and promote a minimum level of potential natural dispersal to and 
from each population segment. This approach also will increase the 
numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is 
shared by all three States. Wyoming alone has committed to maintain at 
least 15 breeding pairs (with at least 7 of those breeding pairs 
outside the National Parks) and 150 wolves, so wolves in the Montana 
and Idaho portion of the GYA would be in addition to those required to 
exceed minimal recovery area levels. A large and well-distributed 
population within the GYA is especially important because it is the 
most isolated core recovery area within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 
2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19).
    The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum 
number of breeding pairs and wolves needed to achieve recovery. To 
ensure that the NRM wolf population continues to exceed the recovery 
goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, Montana (2003), Idaho (2002; 
2007), and Wyoming (2007) have committed to manage for at least 15 
breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves per State in mid-winter and 
maintain its metapopulation structure. Because the recovery goal 
components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near 
its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be much 
higher than these minimal goals. At this point in time, it is unknown 
how many wolves and breeding pairs will ultimately result from 
implementation of the State management plans except that each State 
plan's management objectives assure that the NRM DPS will certainly be 
well over a combined total of 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves. Each 
State has committed to manage for at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding 
pairs by regulating human-caused mortality. If each of the States 
managed to have only 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves (which is 
extremely unlikely since each would have to be at their lowest 
allowable level at the same time and wolves will still also be present 
in National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote public lands where 
sharp reductions in wolf numbers are unlikely), then 45 breeding pairs 
would likely result in more than 450 wolves. Service data since 1986 
indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each breeding pair has corresponded 
to 14 wolves in mid-winter (Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    These goals were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population 
with sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy for its 
long-term conservation (See Summary of Threats Analysis section for 
details). We have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly 
re-evaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 
1987, p. 12; Service 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 
26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). After evaluating all available information, we 
conclude the best scientific and commercial data available continues to 
support the ability of these recovery goals to ensure the population 
does not again become in danger of extinction.
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--In 1989, we formed an Interagency 
Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and 
Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; 
Service et al. 1989-2007, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic 
recovery tasks (Service et al. 1989-2007, p. 1-2), in addition to the 
standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed 
species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 
(2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting 
other non-lethal measures, or killing them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); 
(3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf 
relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, 
livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based 
information to the public and mass media so that people could develop 
their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed 
perspective.
    The size and distribution of the NRM wolf population is estimated 
by the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is 
published in an interagency annual report (Service et al. 1989-2007, 
Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our 
cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored over 940 wolves 
in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to 
reduce/resolve conflict with livestock. The Working

[[Page 10523]]

Group's annual population estimates represent the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population 
size and trends, as well as distributional and other information.
    Recovery by State--At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met 
its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 
30 breeding pairs and over 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming (Service et al. 2001, Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 
2003). This minimum recovery goal was exceeded every year since 2000 
(Service et al. 2002-2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Because the 
recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal 
element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 when 663 
wolves and 49 breeding pairs were present (Service et al. 2003, Table 
4). At the end of 2007, the NRM wolf population achieved its numerical 
and distributional recovery goal for 8 consecutive years (68 FR 15804, 
April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; Service et al. 2001-2007, 
Table 4; Service 2007a).
    For the State-by-State recovery goals, Idaho and Wyoming first 
achieved the minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
in 2000, and Montana first achieved them in 2002. All three States have 
met or exceeded this goal every year since it was first achieved. In 
late 2007, preliminary estimates indicate there are 394 wolves in 37 
breeding pairs in Montana, 788 wolves in 41 breeding pairs in Idaho, 
and 362 wolves in 27 breeding pairs in Wyoming for about 1,545 wolves 
in 105 potential breeding pairs in the NRM wolf population (Service 
2007a). The NRM wolf population increased about 24 percent annually 
from 1995 to 2006 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). Figure 2 illustrates 
wolf population trends by State from 1979 to 2006.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE08.026

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    As discussed previously, after the 2002 peer review of the wolf 
recovery efforts, we began using States, in addition to recovery areas, 
to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2007, 
Table 4). However, because the original recovery plan included goals 
for core recovery areas we have included the following discussion on 
the history of the recovery efforts and status of these core recovery 
areas, including how the wolf population's distribution and 
metapopulation structure is important to maintaining its viability and 
how the biological characteristics of each core recovery area differ 
(Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area-- The 
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km\2\ (33,386 mi\2\) 
includes: Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves 
there are listed as endangered.

[[Page 10525]]

Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et 
al. 1989). The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize 
empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 17-19), the interim control 
plan (Service 1988, 1999), and the interagency recovery program 
combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 
1991, p.7-13). By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 
wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, since 1997, the estimated 
number of breeding pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partly due to 
actual population size and partly due to monitoring effort. It varied 
from 4 to 12 breeding pairs and from 49 to 171 wolves (Service et al. 
2007, Table 4) but generally increased. In 2007, we estimated 214 
wolves in 24 breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area 
(Service 2007a).
    The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves 
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat 
and it is more fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2006. p. 560). Some of the 
variation in our wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is 
due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the areas' thick forests. 
Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly on white-tailed deer, 
resulting in smaller packs and territories, which makes packs more 
difficult to detect (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring 
efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 
(MFWP) since 2005 were likely responsible for some of the higher 
population estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely 
exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves but were not documented 
simply due to less intensive monitoring those years (Service et al. 
2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Wolf numbers in northwestern Montana 
have exceeded 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs for at least the past 3 
years, and probably the last 6 years (Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among northwestern 
Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent Canadian populations, 
demonstrating that northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically 
and genetically linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in 
central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-8; Boyd and Pletscher 
1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Because 
of fairly contiguous but fractured suitable habitat, wolves dispersing 
into northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or 
form new packs and supplement this portion of the overall NRM wolf 
population (Boyd et al. 1995, p. 140; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; 
Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Jimenez et al. in prep; vonHoldt et al. 
2007, p. 19; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4).
    Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness complex, northwestern 
Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large numbers of 
overwintering wild ungulates and few livestock. Therefore, wolf numbers 
may not ever be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in the 
Central Idaho or GYA core recovery areas. However, this portion of the 
NRM DPS has persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and habitat 
there is capable of supporting 200 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 
4). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management 
plan (2003), will ensure this portion of the NRM DPS continues to 
thrive (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho 
Recovery Area's 53,600 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\) includes: The Selway 
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth 
Wilderness Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in central Idaho; and 
adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In January 
1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada were released in 
central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 
7). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British Columbia were 
released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Central Idaho contains the 
greatest amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either 
northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559). 
Consequently, the central Idaho area population has grown continuously 
and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in the Northwestern 
Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's 
increase in its wolf population estimate was due to an increased 
monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). By 2007, 
we estimated 885 wolves in 48 potential breeding pairs in the central 
Idaho recovery area (Service 2007a). This marks ten successive years 
(1998-2007) that this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair 
and 100 wolves (Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a).
    Recovery in the GYA--The GYA Recovery Area (63,700 km\2\ [24,600 
mi\2\]) includes: YNP; the Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, 
Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas (the National Park/Wilderness 
units); adjacent public and private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent 
parts of Idaho and Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). The wilderness 
portions of the GYA are only seasonally used by wolves due to high 
elevation, deep snow, and low productivity in terms of sustaining year-
round wild ungulate populations (Service et al. 2007, Figure 3). In 
1995, 14 wolves representing 3 family groups from Alberta were released 
in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; 
Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). In 1996, this procedure was 
repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 family groups from British 
Columbia. Finally, 10 five-month-old pups removed from northwestern 
Montana were released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, 
p. 787). Only 2 survived past 9 months but both became breeding adults. 
By 2007, we estimated 455 wolves in 34 potential breeding pairs in the 
GYA (Service 2007a). This marks eight successive years (2000-2007) that 
this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves 
(Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a).
    Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding 
pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4). The population recovered in 2006, primarily because numbers 
outside YNP in Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2007). Most of this decline occurred in YNP (which 
declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 
wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, Tables 
1-4) and likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP 
was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared to 
limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when 
reintroduction took place (Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259; White and 
Garrott 2006, p. 942); and (4) a suspected 2005 outbreak of disease 
(canine parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper (CD)) reduced that years'' 
pup survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 
2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20). By 2007, the YNP wolf 
population had rebounded and was estimated to contain 186 wolves in 12 
breeding pairs (Service 2007a). Additional significant growth in the 
National Park/Wilderness portions of the Wyoming wolf population is 
unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with resident wolf 
packs. Maintaining wolf populations above recovery levels in the GYA of 
the NRM DPS will depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park/
Wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana.
    For further information on the history of NRM wolf recovery, 
recovery

[[Page 10526]]

planning (including defining appropriate recovery criteria), population 
monitoring (through the end of 2007), and cooperation and coordination 
with our partners in achieving recovery, see the ``Recovery'' section 
of the August 1, 2006, 12-month status review (71 FR 43411-43413), 
Service weekly wolf reports (1995-2007), and the Rocky Mountain Wolf 
Recovery Interagency Annual Reports (Service et al. 1989-2007) at 
http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov. The NRM Wolf Interagency Annual Report 
for 2007 (Service et al. 2008) should be available about the time this 
rule is published.

Public Comments Solicited

    In accordance with our Interagency Policy for Peer Review in 
Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994) and the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review, we solicited independent review of the 
science in the proposed delisting rule from eight well-published North 
American scientists with extensive expertise in wolf biology. The 
purpose of this review was to ensure that our decision to establish and 
delist the NRM gray wolf DPS was based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, analyses, and conclusions. All eight peer reviewers 
submitted comments on the proposed delisting rule during the initial 
90-day comment period (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 
29, 2007). Five of those experts reviewed the proposal again after we 
reopened the comment period (73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007) to allow 
consideration of Wyoming's revised wolf management plan and its impact 
upon our proposal.
    Six of seven peer reviewers who specifically stated an opinion on 
the soundness of our overall initial delisting proposal confirmed that 
our approach was generally reasonable and science-based and that 
appropriate literature was cited. Five of the eight experts volunteered 
the opinion that the Service's rejection of the Wyoming 2003 wolf 
management framework appeared warranted. Two reviewers questioned 
whether delisting anywhere in the NRM DPS should proceed without an 
approved Wyoming wolf management plan. All of the experts who reviewed 
Wyoming's revised plan and commented during the reopened comment period 
indicated delisting was appropriate. Generally, the reviewers agreed 
with our conclusion that the wolf population in the NRM DPS is 
biologically recovered and is no longer threatened as long as the 
States adequately regulate human-caused mortality. The reviewers 
provided many valuable thoughts, questions, and suggestions for 
improving the document. Issues identified by reviewers included: 
Suggestions to expand the discussion related to the recovery criteria 
(connectivity, foreseeable future, metapopulation, and breeding pairs); 
the adequacy of State wolf management plans and their future 
commitments; how the DPS border and criteria for suitable habitat were 
developed; not delisting northwestern Wyoming within the NRM DPS; and 
the effect of human-caused mortality on the wolf population.
    We considered their comments and recommendations as we made our 
final decision on the proposal. As a result of these comments, we 
incorporated many changes into the document. All other substantive peer 
reviewer comments are addressed under the appropriate Issue/Response 
sections, which follow.

Summary of Public Comments

    In our proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties 
submit information, data, comments, or suggestions (72 FR 6106, 
February 8, 2007). The comment period was open from February 8, 2007, 
through May 9, 2007 (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 
29, 2007). On July 6, 2007, we reopened the comment period for an 
additional 30 days (73 FR 36939). During the comment periods, we held 
eight public hearings and eight open houses (72 FR 6106, February 8, 
2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007; 73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007). To 
further promote interest and awareness in the proposal, we also: 
conducted numerous press interviews; published legal notices in 
newspapers; and posted on our website, and otherwise made available, 
the proposal and numerous background documents. Comments could be hand 
delivered to us or submitted to us via e-mail, mail, the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal, fax, or public hearing testimony. Because the 
Federal Register notices listed one email address and the press 
releases listed another email address, we considered comments submitted 
to either email address. During the public comment process, we received 
410 oral statements, 103 written testimony statements, over 283,000 
emailed public comments, and 434 mailed and faxed comments. Comments 
were submitted by a wide array of parties, including the general 
public, environmental organizations, outdoor recreation, agricultural 
agencies and organizations, and Tribal, Federal, State, and local 
governments.
    We reviewed all comments from peer reviewers and the public for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. 
Substantive comments received during the comment period have been 
addressed below or incorporated directly into this final rule. Comments 
of a similar nature are grouped together under subject headings in a 
series of ``Issues'' and ``Responses.''

Technical and Editorial Comments

    Issue 1: Numerous technical and editorial comments and corrections 
were provided by respondents on nearly every part of the proposal. 
Several peer reviewers and others suggested or provided additional 
literature to consider in the final rule.
    Response 1: We corrected and updated numbers and other data 
wherever appropriate and possible. We edited the rule to make its 
purpose and rationale clearer. We shortened and condensed several 
sections by not repeating information that was already contained in the 
references cited.
    The literature used and recommended by the peer reviewers and 
others has been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in this 
final rule. We also reviewed and added literature in development and in 
press to our reference list when it represents the best scientific and 
commercial data available. The list of literature cited in this rule 
will be posted on our website.

Compliance With Laws, Regulations, and Policy

    Issue 2: Numerous parties suggested that delisting the NRM DPS does 
not comply with our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities.
    Response 2: We have carefully reviewed the legal requirements of 
the Act, its implementing regulations, and relevant case law, all 
relevant Executive, Secretarial, and Director Orders, Departmental and 
Service policy, and other federal policies and procedures. We believe 
this rule and the process by which it was developed fully satisfies all 
of our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities.
    Issue 3: Some commenters suggested that a new NEPA analysis on the 
1995 reintroduction was needed because wolves have exceeded levels 
analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Others 
suggested NEPA compliance on the delisting was needed for other 
reasons.
    Response 3: The 1994 EIS was limited to the NRM wolf reintroduction 
efforts and is not applicable to the delisting process. As noted in the 
proposed rule, NEPA compliance documents, such as environmental 
assessments or

[[Page 10527]]

environmental impact statements, need not be prepared in connection 
with actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act (listings, 
delistings, and reclassifications). A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    Issue 4: The Service has not adequately consulted with Native 
American Tribes, as required by Secretarial Order 3206.
    Response 4: The Service has engaged in a wide variety of efforts to 
consult with Native American Tribes. During the development of the 
proposal and this final rule, we endeavored to consult with Native 
American Tribes and Native American organizations to provide them with 
a complete understanding of the proposal and to enable us to gain an 
understanding of their concerns. We made additional efforts to contact 
and inform Tribes during the comment period, including providing the 
opportunity for informational meetings with Tribal representatives 
before the open houses and hearings on the delisting proposal. As we 
have become aware of Native American concerns, we have tried to address 
those concerns to the extent allowed by the Act, the Administrative 
Procedure Act, and other Federal statutes. We continue to work closely 
with and fund the Nez Perce Tribe and we assisted the Wind River Tribes 
in developing a Tribal Wolf Management Plan (Wind River Tribes 2007) 
that we approved in June 2007.

Recovery Goals, Recovery Criteria, and Delisting

    Issue 5: Some commenters suggested that we should not use numerical 
quotas in reclassification or delisting decisions for the gray wolf. 
Commenters offered a multitude of reasons why delisting is warranted/
not warranted or premature/overdue.
    Response 5: The Act specifies that objective and measurable 
criteria be developed for recovering listed species. For a detailed 
discussion of the NRM wolf recovery criteria see the Recovery section. 
This final delisting determination is based upon the species' status 
relative to the Act's definition of threatened or endangered and 
considers potential threats to the species as outlined in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. Population numbers and status provide useful 
information for assessing the species' vulnerability to these factors. 
Therefore we believe that it is appropriate to use numerical 
information in our analysis if delisting is warranted. As described in 
detail in this rule, the species no longer meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered, thus, delisting is warranted.
    Issue 6: Some commenters requested that we further explain the 
recovery criteria.
    Response 6: The rule now provides a fuller explanation of the 
recovery goals (see the Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery 
Criteria section).
    Issue 7: Several commenters used the higher numbers of wolves 
required for recovery of wolves in the WGL DPS as evidence that the NRM 
wolf population is too low to delist.
    Response 7: The recovery goals for the WGL DPS and the NRM DPS 
differ because the biological circumstances (such as prey type and 
density, wolf density, habitat suitability, terrain, other ecological 
conditions, the history of recovery and planning efforts, and potential 
for human conflict) in each area differ. However, the standards for 
achieving recovery have the same biological foundation. Each set of 
recovery goals required a metapopulation structure, numerical and 
distribution delisting criteria to be exceeded for several years, State 
plans that would adequately regulate wolf mortality, and sufficient 
elimination or reduction of threats to the population. The standards 
for achieving recovery in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS are both 
scientifically valid and realistically reflect the biological 
similarities and differences between each area.
    Issue 8: Some suggested that the 1994 recovery goal was inadequate 
to ensure the continued viability of the NRM DPS. Specifically, it was 
suggested that the 1994 EIS could not properly evaluate the recovery 
goals because predicting the number of wolves the two then-unoccupied 
recovery zones might support was not possible in 1994. Some thought 
that the wolf recovery goals should be reevaluated given historic or 
recent wolf numbers and distribution throughout the NRM. Others 
suggested that additional protection of the ecosystem on which the NRM 
wolves depend would be necessary to accomplish successful recovery in 
areas of historic occupancy. Some questioned the objectivity of the 
peer review process for the recovery goals. Others suggested that the 
wolf population be reduced to the minimum recovery goal of 300 wolves 
in 30 breeding pairs.
    Response 8: We do not dispute the fact that the NRM can support a 
wolf population that is several times higher than the minimum numerical 
recovery goal. However, under the Act, species recovery is considered 
to be the return of a species to the point where it is no longer 
threatened or endangered. Recovery under the Act does not require 
restoring a species to historic levels or even maximizing possible 
levels of genetic diversity, density, or distribution. The Service has 
reviewed the NRM wolf recovery goal to ensure it is adequate (see 
discussion in Recovery section). We determined that a three-State wolf 
metapopulation that does not fall below 10 breeding pairs and 100 
wolves per State in mid-winter is biologically recovered. Montana, 
Idaho and Wyoming have committed to maintain the NRM wolf population 
above those minimum numerical and distributional levels.
    We used an extensive unbiased scientific peer review and public 
review process and our own expertise to help investigate, and modify as 
necessary, the recovery goals. We continue to believe these goals are 
adequate to ensure the species does not again become threatened or 
endangered. Additionally, peer reviews of the State wolf management 
plans and the rulemaking process also confirmed the adequacy of the 
recovery goals to maintain a recovered wolf population in the NRM.
    Regarding habitat, we believe the NRM DPS contains sufficient 
quality and quantity of habitat to maintain a healthy and viable wolf 
population in the long-term (as discussed in Factor A below). Thus, we 
do not believe there is a need for additional habitat protections in 
the NRM DPS.
    Finally, the Act does not require or authorize the Service to 
manage a listed species to keep it from surpassing minimum recovery 
goals.

Future Wolf Numbers

    Issue 9: Many pointed out that the States will manage the NRM wolf 
population for fewer wolves than currently exist. Others recommended 
that we recognize that wolf numbers can fluctuate dramatically.
    Response 9: The delisted NRM DPS wolf population may be reduced 
from its current levels of around 1,500 wolves after delisting. 
However, the three States containing all habitat occupied by persistent 
wolf packs and most of the suitable habitat in the NRM DPS have each 
committed to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves so 
the population never goes below recovery levels. These States have 
indicated that they will likely manage the population at around 883-
1,240 wolves in 69-96 breeding pairs (see Recovery Planning and the 
Selection of Recovery Criteria section and Factor D.). We believe 
maintenance well above the minimum recovery goal is more than 
sufficient to maintain wolf recovery in the NRM. We and our State 
partners recognize that all

[[Page 10528]]

wildlife populations, including wolves, can fluctuate widely over a 
relatively short period of time. By managing for at least 50 percent 
above the minimal recovery levels, the States provide an adequate 
safety margin. This margin, combined with the States' commitment to 
adaptively manage the species as needed, adequately addressed concerns 
about population fluctuations.

Additional Recovery Efforts

    Issue 10: Some commenters suggested that the Service should 
initiate additional recovery programs in order to achieve gray wolf 
recovery before any delisting occurs. Others thought additional 
recovery efforts in these areas were unwise and unnecessary. The 
adjacent States of California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and 
Washington were mentioned most frequently for additional recovery 
programs.
    Response 10: Possible future wolf recovery programs are beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking as such actions are not necessary to ensure 
the NRM DPS remains unlikely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    Issue 11: Several commenters thought that wolf recovery should 
require re-colonization of all historical range or, at least, the 
portions of the historical range that could be made suitable. Some 
suggested that wolves should remain listed to promote wolf restoration 
within unoccupied portions of the species historic range, both in and 
beyond the NRM DPS. Others indicated that the conservation biology 
concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation need to be 
addressed over a much broader area. Some believed that our 
interpretation of recovery led us to focus on occupied habitat and 
controlling excessive rates of human-caused mortality rather than 
``true recovery.'' It was suggested that ``true recovery'' requires 
natural connectivity or linkage, protection and enhancement of existing 
population levels, widespread habitat protection and restoration, and 
very protective regulatory mechanisms.
    Response 11: Many of these comments would expand the purpose of the 
Act and the meaning of ``recover'' under the Act. The purpose of the 
Act is to prevent species extinctions and provide for the conservation 
of endangered and threatened species. Conservation is defined as the 
use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. According to our 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11), a species is recovered when 
the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that it no 
longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    Restoration of historically occupied areas can play a role in 
achieving this goal. In the case of the NRM DPS, occupancy has been 
restored and will be sustained across a sufficiently large area to 
ensure the recovered status of the NRM DPS is never compromised. 
Occupancy across larger portions of the historical range, unless 
required to preclude the NRM DPS from again becoming threatened or 
endangered, are beyond the requirements of the Act.
    Resiliency, redundancy, and representation (described in detail in 
the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis section below) are important 
factors in the long-term conservation status of any species (Shaffer 
and Stein 2000). The principles of resiliency and redundancy are 
satisfied by the metapopulation structure of the NRM DPS, the numeric 
and distributional elements of the recovery goal, the core of highly 
protected public lands that provide secure habitat in each core 
recovery area, and the natural biological resiliency and adaptability 
of wolves. The concept of representation, when applied to the 
conservation of the gray wolf, indicates that we should preserve enough 
genetic diversity so that future genetic problems are unlikely to lead 
to extinction. These problems may include genetic drift (random 
fluctuations of gene frequencies in a population) and inbreeding 
depression (decreased vigor in terms of growth, survival, or 
fecundity), which would result in a diminished ability to survive or 
evolve as new environmental conditions develop. Within the NRM DPS, the 
current gray wolf recovery program preserves all of what remains of the 
species' genetic diversity in that area (Leonard et al. 2005, p. 1) 
(See discussion of genetics in Factor E.). The three wolf populations 
in the lower 48 States (WGL DPS, NRM DPS, and the wolf population in 
the southwest) contain all of the remaining genetic material of the 
gray wolf that formerly inhabited those areas. Additionally, the 
species remains abundant in many areas of the northern hemisphere. 
Collectively, this information shows that the conservation biology 
principle of representation is satisfied.
    We disagree with the assertion that we have inappropriately focused 
our recovery efforts on occupied habitat and mortality control. In 
fact, we have focused recovery efforts on wolf population levels, 
distribution, habitat, connectivity, all forms of mortality, wolf/human 
conflicts, diseases and parasites, predation, human attitudes, 
genetics, and dispersal (Service et al. 2007). We have also worked to 
maintain public tolerance of wolves by limiting damage to private 
property. These recovery efforts led to significant increases in wolf 
numbers and range, allowing wolves to reoccupy habitats they were 
absent from since the 1930s. Our efforts also provided demographic, 
genetic, and habitat security. Wolves now occupy most of the suitable 
habitat within the NRM DPS. This comprehensive approach to recovery 
will be continued under State management in the future. Additional 
conservation actions that would result in a more widely distributed and 
numerically abundant wolf population in the NRM DPS are not necessary 
to meet the definition of recovered under the Act.
    Issue 12: Many suggested that we failed to recognize the ecological 
importance or trophic cascades (the ripple effect in predator, 
herbivore, plant, and scavenger communities caused by restoring a 
keystone species like wolves) and ecological effects emanating from 
wolf restoration in the NRM. Some suggested that the Act mandates that 
a species be ``ecologically effective.'' Still others thought we should 
use an ``ecosystem approach'' when implementing recovery. Finally, some 
suggested delisting does not fulfill parts of the Service mission which 
includes, ``working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, 
wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 
the American people.''
    Response 12: We recognize that wolf recovery appears to have caused 
trophic cascades and ecological effects that affect numerous other 
animal and plant communities, and their relationships with each other. 
One example is changes in elk density and behavior that reduce browsing 
pressure in riparian areas that allow increased willow growth and 
survival, which then provides habitat for beaver, fish fry, and nesting 
song birds. These effects have been most pronounced when wolf 
populations are at natural carrying capacity, such as in YNP (Smith et 
al. 2003, pp. 330-340; Robbins 2004, pp. 76-85; Campbell et al. 2006, 
pp. 360-363). While some believe we should stall delisting until these 
cascading ecological effects are restored throughout the NRM DPS or 
beyond, this approach is not supported by the Act. Instead, when a 
species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened 
under the Act, it is

[[Page 10529]]

recovered, and should be delisted. Similarly, the Act does not require 
that we achieve or maintain ``ecological effectiveness'' (i.e., 
occupancy with densities that maintain critical ecosystem interactions 
and help ensure against ecosystem degradation) (Soule et al. 2003, p. 
1239).
    Service policy intends that we apply an ecosystem approach in 
carrying out our programs for fish and wildlife conservation (National 
Policy Issuances 95-03 and 96-10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal 
of such an approach is to strive to contribute to the effective 
conservation of natural biological diversity through perpetuation of 
dynamic, healthy ecosystems when carrying out our various mandates and 
functions. Preserving and recovering endangered and threatened species 
is one of the more basic aspects of an ecosystem approach to 
conservation. Successful recovery of a threatened or endangered species 
requires that the necessary components of its habitat and ecosystem be 
conserved, and that diverse partnerships be developed to ensure the 
long-term protection of those components. Thus, the recovery success 
demonstrated for gray wolves, a keystone or ``highly interactive 
species'' (as defined by Soule et al. 2003), incorporated an ecosystem 
approach.
    Finally, we believe the delisting portrays successful 
implementation of our mission statement. Gray wolf recovery programs 
involve many partners in the private and public sector, at all levels 
of government, and include numerous other State and Federal agencies. 
The gray wolf recovery successes described in this rule resulted from 
working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance gray wolf 
populations in the NRM DPS. That success has now reached a point where 
the NRM DPS is no longer threatened or endangered and thus no longer 
requires the protections of the Act.
    Issue 13: Some commenters suggested that we should delist gray 
wolves in areas outside the proposed DPS because: wolves are common 
elsewhere (in other areas of the lower 48 States or in Alaska and 
Canada); wolves have recovered (in that area or elsewhere); wolves are 
extirpated in many areas and could be delisted on the basis of 
extinction in those areas; keeping wolves listed where there is little 
or no suitable habitat results in irresolvable conflicts; and a State 
can manage a resident species better than the Federal government.
    Response 13: The Federal status of wolves under the Act outside of 
the NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this action. An evaluation of these 
areas for either delisting or additional recovery efforts will be 
addressed in subsequent efforts.

Designating the NRM Distinct Population Segment

    Issue 14: Some commenters suggested that we improperly designated 
the NRM DPS.
    Response 14: As described above, the NRM DPS is biologically based, 
appropriate, and was developed in accordance with the Act and the DPS 
Policy. The Service has the authority to list, reclassify, or delist at 
the subspecies, species, or DPS level, as we believe to be most 
appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Act.
    Issue 15: Some commenters suggested that the NRM gray wolf 
population is not a DPS because all populations in the lower 48 States 
were once connected. Thus, the population should not be considered 
discrete.
    Response 15: A comprehensive evaluation of the NRM gray wolf 
population's discreteness is included in the ``Analysis for 
Discreteness'' section above. The Act and the DPS Policy require that a 
DPS be discrete from other existing populations. Historical 
distribution has no bearing on the NRM population's current 
discreteness. The boundaries of the NRM DPS are based on likely 
dispersal distances and surrounding unsuitable habitat.
    We believe a continuous uninterrupted population throughout most of 
the lower 48 States, as existed historically, is not achievable. The 
best scientific and commercial information available suggests the NRM 
population will remain markedly separated from other gray wolf 
populations in the lower 48 States. Occupancy in the vast majority of 
intervening areas is unsustainable because most of those areas have 
been too modified by people for wolf packs to persist.
    Issue 16: Several commenters suggested that the DPS policy is to be 
used only in listing decisions and that using it in a delisting 
decision violates Congressional intent and the legislative and 
statutory structure of the Act.
    Response 16: The Act, its implementing regulations, and our DPS 
policy provide no support for this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether 
``any species'' is endangered or threatened. Numerous sections of the 
Act refer to adding and removing ``species'' from the list of 
threatened or endangered plants and animals. Section 3(15) defines 
``species'' to include any subspecies ``* * * and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife * * 
*'' The Act directs us to list, reclassify, and delist species, 
subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate species. It contains no provisions 
requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be treated in a different manner 
than species or subspecies when carrying out the listing, recovery, and 
delisting functions mandated by section 4. Furthermore, our DPS Policy 
states that the policy is intended for ``the purposes of listing, 
delisting, and reclassifying species under the Act'' (61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996), and that it ``guides the evaluation of distinct 
vertebrate population segments for the purposes of listing, delisting, 
and reclassifying under the Act'' (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996).
    These comments also overlook the untenable situation that would 
arise if DPSs could be listed, but could never be delisted, after they 
have been successfully recovered. Clearly Congress did not envision 
such an outcome when amending the definition of species to include 
vertebrate DPSs.
    Issue 17: It was pointed out that the designation of the NRM DPS 
created a remnant population. Some suggested this violates the Act as 
the Act allows us to ``consider listing only an entire species, 
subspecies, or DPS'' (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 
1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, we cannot declare part of a 
listed species a DPS without also designating the remaining listed 
species as DPS(s). We should reconsider the status of all other wolf 
populations in the lower 48 States simultaneously and should not delist 
the NRM population until we consider recovery goals and planning for 
all other wolf populations/areas in the lower 48 States.
    Response 17: While in some situations it may be appropriate to 
designate multiple DPSs simultaneously, the Act does not require it. 
This flexibility allows the Service to subsequently list or delist 
additional DPSs when additional information becomes available or as the 
conservation status of the taxon changes. Importantly, the court held 
that the Act allows this flexibility. In National Wildlife Federation 
v. Norton (385 F. Supp. 2d 553, 565 (D. Vt. 2005), the court found that 
``Nowhere in the Act is the Secretary prevented from creating a `non-
DPS remnant' designation, especially when the remnant area was already 
listed * * *'' Our current designation of a NRM DPS, while retaining 
the remaining other wolves listed as endangered or nonessential 
experimental, is consistent with this aspect of the District Court's 
ruling.
    Issue 18: Some suggested that the Service should use subspecies to

[[Page 10530]]

designate DPSs across the gray wolf's historical range and these DPSs 
should replace or supplement the current recovery zones. Others thought 
the current program illegally restored the wrong subspecies of wolf to 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Response 18: The subspecific classification for the gray wolf 
identified by Hall (1984, pp. 2-11) is no longer in accordance with 
accepted, although evolving, scientific taxonomic literature and 
approaches (Service 1994, p. 1-21-22; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 353; 
Nowak 1995, p. 375; Nowak 2003, pp. 248-50), including new genetic 
analysis (Wayne and Vila 2003, pp. 223-4; Leonard et al. 2005; p. 1; 
Leonard and Wayne 2007, p. 1). Newer molecular techniques indicate 
distinct subspecies classifications or ranges are not appropriate when 
evaluating natural diversity and evolution in wolves. We accept the 
holarctic species (Canis lupus) concept without regard to theoretical 
historic subspecies designations. Therefore, we do not consider the 
wolves we reintroduced from Canada as a separate subspecies. 
Theoretical use of multiple DPSs to reestablish wolf populations in 
areas outside the recovered NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Issue 19: It was suggested that a wolf dispersing outside of the 
DPS boundaries (e.g., into Colorado) may create confusion among State, 
Federal, and Tribal agencies regarding the status of that wolf. To 
address this confusion, some believed that any wolf originating from 
the NRM DPS should be considered part of that DPS, regardless of where 
they are geographically.
    Response 19: Consistent with Section 4(c) of the Act, the status of 
individual members of any species, subspecies, or DPS is dependent on 
its geographic location. We used easily identifiable boundaries, such 
as the center line of major highways or State borders, to minimize 
management confusion. Once this rule goes into effect, if a wolf goes 
beyond the NRM DPS boundary it attains the listing status of the area 
it has entered (i.e., endangered in much of the lower 48 States except 
where listed as nonessential experimental or delisted, as in the WGL 
DPS). Similarly, if a wolf enters the NRM DPS, it would not be listed 
and would be managed according to the relevant State management plan. 
State and Federal agencies adjacent to the NRM DPS are aware of and 
understand the management implications of the DPS boundaries. While we 
believe that future dispersal and conflicts outside the DPS will be 
rare, we will continue to work with any affected States or Tribes to 
resolve them.
    Issue 20: Numerous comments suggested the border of the DPS was 
improperly developed. Some suggested the DPS should have been larger, 
while others thought it should have been smaller. Some believe that 
because the boundaries were mainly highways or State borders, they were 
arbitrary and not based on sound biological principles or natural 
features like rivers. The adjacent States requested that the NRM DPS 
boundary be changed to include most of Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, some 
of eastern North and South Dakota, and none of Washington.
    Response 20: The boundary of the NRM DPS was established by 
analyzing the distribution of potentially suitable and unsuitable 
habitat for wolves in the NRM and the documented dispersal distances of 
radio-collared wolves. These are the most likely factors to influence a 
split between the NRM DPS and other potential areas of occupancy. A 
smaller DPS might split the biological entity. A larger DPS might split 
a neighboring biological entity, should one ever be established. 
According to our DPS policy, an artificial or manmade boundary (such as 
Interstate, Federal, and State highways, or State borders) may be used 
as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the 
geographic area included within the DPS. We believe such use of easily 
understood boundaries will promote public understanding of the 
decision. In this case, the NRM DPS boundaries were defined along 
easily identifiable boundaries that represent the most appropriate DPS 
for this population (see DPS discussion in this rule for our 
rationale). While some suggested ``more biological'' borders like 
rivers or geological features, we do not believe such borders are of 
any greater biological meaning to wolves given their ability to cross 
nearly any geographic feature and distance (Linnell et al. 2005). In 
our view, the biological influences of suitable and unsuitable habitat 
in combination with mortality risk are likely to have the greatest 
influence on separation among populations.

Defining Suitable Habitat

    Issue 21: Some commenters thought we should explain why some 
historically occupied lands were excluded from our definition of 
suitable habitat.
    Response 21: Our identification of suitable habitat was based on 
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding 
successful utilization of habitat. Many areas of historic wolf habitat 
are no longer capable of supporting wolves. Most of these areas have 
been so modified by human activities as to be unsuitable for wolves. 
This issue is discussed in more detail in Factor A below.
    Issue 22: Some commenters suggested that we improperly considered 
more than strictly biological criteria in defining suitable habitat by 
allowing the definition of suitable to consider human tolerance. Others 
suggested that we misinterpreted the habitat suitability models because 
they only present probabilities of successful occupation by wolves 
under current conditions.
    Response 22: Our approach to suitable habitat considered a variety 
of factors including but not limited to human tolerance. Suitable wolf 
habitat in the NRM is generally characterized as public land with 
mountainous, forested habitat that contains abundant year-round wild 
ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic 
livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 
agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat is not 
capable of supporting viable populations. In the NRM, unsuitable 
habitat is generally considered private land, flat open prairie or 
desert, lands containing low or seasonal wild ungulate populations, 
high road density, high numbers of year-round domestic livestock 
including many domestic sheep, high levels of agricultural use, and 
many people. When wolves occur in places with high levels of human 
activity, they experience an increased mortality risk. The level of 
impact from such mortality is directly related to the location and 
numbers of humans and their activities.
    In terms of suitable habitat models, we recognize that none of the 
available models are exact indicators of what is ``suitable.'' Each 
model only identifies areas with a 50 percent or greater chance of 
being suitable. Thus, we made our determination based upon a number of 
factors including, but not limited to, these models.

Foreseeable Future

    Issue 23: Some commenters believed that limiting foreseeable future 
to 30 years was inappropriate.
    Response 23: For the NRM DPS, the foreseeable future differs for 
each factor potentially impacting the DPS and we revised our definition 
of foreseeable future in this final rule to take into account the 
variability of what is foreseeable for each threat factor. However, for 
most factors impacting the NRM DPS, we believe a window of up to 30 
years is foreseeable. We consider this to be a reasonable timeframe

[[Page 10531]]

because: (1) It took approximately this long from listing for public 
attitudes and regulations to result in a social climate that promoted 
and allowed for wolf restoration in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS; (2) this 
timeframe represents about ten wolf generations (3 years each) which is 
about how long it took for wolves in both the NRM DPS and WGL DPS to 
expand numbers and exceed their biological recovery criteria; and (3) 
available habitat and potential future distribution models (Carroll et 
al. 2003, 536; Carroll et al. 2006, Figure 6) predict out about this 
far. For some threat factors, a longer time horizon may be appropriate. 
For example, in our consideration of genetics, we reviewed a paper that 
looked 100 years into the future (vonHoldt et al. 2007). When 
evaluating the available information, with respect to foreseeable 
future, we take into account reduced confidence as we forecast further 
into the future.

Potential Threats to the NRM DPS

    Issue 24: A number of commenters disputed our analysis of the five 
listing factors, suggesting alternative scenarios where the NRM wolf 
population would be threatened in the future.
    Response 24: We updated and augmented the final rule's five-factor 
analysis to address specific issues raised. Our analysis revealed that 
none of these potential factors will threaten the NRM DPS wolf 
population in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 25: It was suggested that we did not fully evaluate or 
acknowledge the potential impacts from oil and gas development or other 
human development on the wolf population. Other habitat issues in the 
NRM that required additional consideration included rapid human 
population growth and the resulting increase in houses, roads, 
recreation, and wolf/human conflicts.
    Response 25: These issues are now considered under Factor A below.
    Issue 26: Some commenters thought that the Service should reduce 
the future threat to wolves by requiring that livestock be reduced or 
eliminated on public lands.
    Response 26: Wolves and livestock, primarily cattle and horses, can 
live near one another for extended periods of time without significant 
conflict. Through active management, most wolves do not learn that 
livestock can be successfully attacked and do not view them as prey. 
However, when wolves and livestock mix some livestock and some wolves 
are inevitably killed. Furthermore, when wolves learn to attack 
livestock, that behavior can quickly be learned by other wolves if it 
is not stopped. Since large numbers of wild ungulates winter on private 
property, even wolves that prey exclusively on wild ungulates will be 
in close proximity to livestock during at least some portion of the 
year. Wolf recovery has occurred and will continue to be maintained 
without modification of traditional western land-use practices and 
without removing livestock from public grazing allotments. Public lands 
in the NRM can have both large predators and seasonal livestock 
grazing. The Service has no need, for the purposes of wolf recovery, 
for livestock grazing practices on either public or private land to be 
modified, because wolf recovery is not threatened by the current levels 
of activities. Regulating livestock grazing on public lands is under 
the authorities of the respective land management agencies. We believe 
State management will continue to successfully balance traditional 
livestock grazing practices, open space, and wolf conservation.
    Issue 27: Some commenters were concerned about humane treatment of 
wolves and were opposed to certain methods of take, particularly aerial 
gunning and poisoning. Numerous parties suggested that the Service 
should not allow public hunting of wolves. Others suggested that we 
should require the use of nonlethal control tools to reduce conflict 
with livestock.
    Response 27: After delisting, we have determined that the States 
regulating wolves in the NRM DPS will not threaten the wolf population. 
However, we have no jurisdiction over the method or timing of State 
management or control of a delisted species. In Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming, wolves listed as trophy game can only be taken by the public 
as prescribed by State statute, usually fair chase hunting or regulated 
trapping. Wildlife listed as predatory animals are generally not 
covered by State anti-cruelty laws (e.g., Wyoming Title 6, Chapter 3, 
Article 2), so methods of take are not regulated. Wildlife agency 
professionals adhere to specific protocols when they capture, handle, 
or euthanize wildlife for research or management purposes. In the vast 
majority of situations, wolf control will be accomplished by regulated 
public hunting and trapping or agency control of problem wolves. State 
authorized wolf control may include, just as the federally authorized 
control program currently does, gunning from the air and ground, 
trapping, and, in a few cases, removing pups from dens. Deliberate 
poisoning of wolves will not be allowed due to current Environmental 
Protection Agency label restrictions on the use and application of all 
poisons (including M-44 devices) capable of killing wolves. Humane 
treatment of wolves in National Parks would be unaffected by delisting.
    Hunting (and in some areas even unregulated hunting) has not 
threatened wolf populations (Boitani 2003). Hunting is a valuable, 
efficient, and cost-effective tool to help manage wildlife populations. 
Viable robust wolf populations in Canada, Alaska, and other parts of 
the world are hunted. The Service recognized (Service 1994, p. 1-13) 
and encouraged (Bangs et al. in press) State wolf management programs 
to incorporate regulated public hunting in their wolf conservation 
programs. Conservation programs to restore large predators such as 
mountain lions, black bears, and wolves succeeded because of the 
historic restoration of wild ungulates, such as elk and deer, by State 
fish and game agencies and hunter dollars and involvement (Geist et al. 
2001, p. 175-181).
    While not required by the Act, the States and Tribes will continue 
to use a combination of management options in order to reduce wolf/
human conflicts including nonlethal forms of control (Bangs et al. 
2006). However, these methods are effective in only some circumstances, 
and no single tool is a cure for every problem. Lethal control will 
still be required in many circumstances. Lethal control can also 
improve the overall effectiveness of nonlethal methods (Brietenmoser et 
al. 2005, p. 70).
    Issue 28: Many people commented that the State regulatory 
frameworks, especially those of Idaho and Wyoming, were not adequate 
and should not have been approved. Commenters cited anti-wolf 
statements by public officials and county ordinances as evidence that 
persecution of wolves will resume if delisting occurs. Some expressed 
their opinion that Wyoming's 2003 State law and management plan were 
inadequate, while others argued we were wrong not to approve the 
measures as an adequate regulatory mechanism. Some felt that Wyoming's 
revised protections remained inadequate. Some were concerned the States 
would not honor their commitments or would change their laws to 
persecute wolves after delisting. Others maintained that none of the 
NRM DPS should be delisted until all States within the DPS (including 
Oregon, Washington, and Utah) had approved wolf management plans. 
Finally, some wanted the States to manage for breeding pairs rather 
than undefined packs.
    Response 28: We recognize that human persecution of wolves was the 
primary reason for their wide-spread

[[Page 10532]]

extirpation across North America. We fully analyzed the nature and 
magnitude of this threat in Factors C and D below. Despite statements 
to the media by some public officials and some county ordinances that, 
if implemented, would be problematic for maintenance of a recovered 
wolf population, the official written policy and laws of the States, 
committing them to manage for a wolf population that always exceeds 
minimum recovery levels, supersede county rules and authorities and 
statements by politicians reported by the media.
    Our evaluation of State regulatory mechanisms considered all the 
laws, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, memorials, statements by 
elected officials, and State plans for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The 
States of Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) adopted State laws and 
management plans that meet the requirements of the Act and will 
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. While 
we continue to believe the 2003 Wyoming law and wolf management plan 
were not sufficient to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM DPS 
(Williams 2004, pp. 1-3; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; 71 FR 6634, 
February 8, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we have determined 
that the 2007 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan meet the 
requirements of the Act and will conserve Wyoming's share of a 
recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (assuming they 
are allowed to become effective; see discussion under Factor D below) 
(72 FR 36939, July 6, 2007; Hall 2007). We believe these regulatory 
mechanisms are adequate to ensure that the wolf population in the NRM 
DPS will remain well above recovery levels into the foreseeable future 
(Williams 2004, pp. 1-3; Hall 2007, p. 1). The discrepancy between 
breeding pairs and packs no longer appears relevant as all three States 
have committed to measure wolf recovery criteria by breeding pairs and 
numbers of wolves (Montana 2003; IDFG 2007; Wyoming 2007). We used peer 
review, public review during rulemaking, and our own expertise to 
assess whether the State plans provided adequate regulatory mechanisms 
to ensure a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future.
    Any wolf conservation by the Tribes and the States of Washington, 
Oregon, and Utah will be beneficial, but is not necessary to either 
achieving or maintaining a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. 
These areas contain little habitat suitable to support persistent wolf 
packs and any wolf breeding pairs that might occur there in the future 
would be too few and distant from the core recovery areas to affect the 
viability of the contiguous NRM wolf population. Still, Oregon and Utah 
have State wolf management plans/strategies and Washington is 
developing one (see Factor D). The Service has not approved these plans 
and we do not have any need to do so in order to finalize this 
delisting action. This is consistent with the recovery plan which 
considered parts of these States (Service 1987, p. 2).
    State management will provide mechanisms for the control of problem 
wolves, including allowing landowners to take wolves in certain 
situations and allowing regulated public harvest of surplus wolves in 
the NRM DPS. This flexibility in wolf control is expected to increase 
public tolerance (Idaho 2007, Appendix A).
    Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed in their laws and plans 
to maintain the wolf population safely above recovery levels by 
regulating human-caused mortality. Mandatory post-delisting monitoring 
includes evaluating any threats to the NRM wolf population as well as 
its distribution and numbers. A decline of wolf populations below 
recovery goals due to failure of the States to honor their commitments 
or for other reasons could result in relisting under the Act.
    Issue 29: Some suggested wolf management needs to be transferred to 
the States and Tribes.
    Response 29: The Service agrees that a recovered wolf population is 
best managed by the respective States and Tribes. The States have 
relatively large and well-distributed professional fish and game 
agencies with demonstrated skills and experience that have successfully 
managed a diversity of resident species, including large carnivores, 
and will do a similarly outstanding job of managing a recovered wolf 
population. State management of wolves will be in alignment with the 
classic State-led North American model for wildlife management, which 
has been extremely successful at restoring, maintaining, and expanding 
the distribution of numerous populations of other wildlife species, 
including other large predators, throughout North America (Geist 2006, 
p. 1).
    The Service delisted the WGL wolf population in early 2007, 
returning management of this population to the States and Tribes. Under 
cooperative agreements with us, Montana, Idaho, and the Nez Perce Tribe 
have successfully managed wolves in those States for the past 3 years. 
The Service worked closely with Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as they 
developed their wolf management plans to ensure that they will always 
manage for a wolf population that exceeds recovery criteria. We are 
confident the States and Tribes will adequately manage wolves so the 
protections of the Act will not be required in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 30: Some parties feared that State wolf management plans 
might not be implemented because funding for the plans is not 
guaranteed. Therefore, they concluded that the Service could not rely 
on them as adequate regulatory mechanisms, and delisting should not 
occur.
    Response 30: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming all recognize that 
implementation of their wolf management plans requires funding. The 
States have committed to secure the necessary funding to manage the 
wolf populations under the guidelines established by their Service-
approved State wolf management plans (Idaho 2002; pp. 23-25; Montana 
2003, pp. xiv; Idaho 2007, pp. 24, 47-48; Wyoming 2007, pp. 29-31). All 
have worked with their congressional delegations to secure Federal 
funding, but recognized that other sources of funding may eventually be 
required to implement their plans. In addition to State license fees or 
other forms of State funding, Federal funding could be available to 
help manage a delisted wolf population including in the form of 
directed appropriations, Pittman-Robinson Wildlife Restoration Act, 
other Federal grant programs, and private funding. The Service will 
continue to assist the States to secure adequate funding for wolf 
management. If wolf management by a State was to be completely unfunded 
or was inadequate to carry out the basic commitments of an approved 
State plan, then the promised management of threats by the States and 
the required monitoring of wolf populations might not be addressed. 
That scenario could trigger a status review for possible relisting 
under the Act.
    Issue 31: Several parties suggested that we should have considered 
the risk to the wolf population from catastrophic events such as fire, 
climate change, drought, disease, and stochastic events.
    Response 31: In response to these comments, we added a discussion 
of catastrophic events under Factor E below. Other potential 
catastrophic events are considered in other sections including our 
evaluation of habitat modification, diseases and parasites, human 
harassment and killing, genetic risks, climate change, and human 
attitudes.
    Issue 32: Some suggested that the Service should consider the 
potential

[[Page 10533]]

effect of low genetic diversity on gray wolf recovery. They contend 
that 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs is not high enough to maintain 
long-term genetic viability. These comments also suggest that the 
isolation of the GYA precluded a natural metapopulation dynamic for 
wolves in the NRM.
    Response 32: Low genetic diversity and inbreeding is a concern for 
species with small populations or that have gone through a population 
bottleneck. We have fully analyzed this issue in Section E below. After 
careful consideration of all of the available information on this 
issue, we do not believe that low genetic diversity will threaten the 
NRM DPS in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 33: Many pointed out that natural connectivity is an 
important consideration for the long-term conservation of the NRM wolf 
population. Some suggested that we should provide habitat protections 
for identified natural linkage zones between and within the GYA and 
central Idaho and northwestern Montana. It was also suggested that we 
should identify critical habitat for these linkage zones.
    Response 33: Wolves have an unusual ability to disperse long 
distances rapidly across virtually any habitat and to select mates to 
maximize genetic diversity. Thus, connectivity issues are less likely 
to affect wolves than nearly any other species of land mammal (Paquet 
et al. 2006, p. 3). Although it is highly unlikely there would ever be 
a need, complications from a potential lack of natural habitat 
connectivity could be quickly resolved by agency management, such as 
relocations. Connectivity and genetics are discussed further below 
under factors A and E, respectively.
    Additionally, connectivity for wildlife across the NRM remains an 
important and high-priority issue for the Service and our partner 
wildlife agencies. A process to identify, maintain, and improve 
wildlife movement areas between the large blocks of public land in the 
NRM is ongoing (Servheen et al. 2003, p. 3). This interagency effort 
involves 13 State and Federal agencies working on linkage facilitation 
across private lands, public lands, and highways (Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee 1994, 2001, pp. 1-2; Brown 2007, pp. 1-3). To date, this 
effort has included: (1) Development of a written protocol and guidance 
document on how to implement linkage zone management on public lands 
(Public Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, pp. 3-5); (2) production of 
several private land linkage management documents (Service 1997; Parker 
and Parker 2002, p. 2); (3) analyses of linkage zone management in 
relation to highways (Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller and 
Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) a workshop in the spring of 2006 on 
implementing management actions for wildlife linkage (the proceedings 
of which are available online at: http://www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage). The 
objective of this work is to maintain and enhance movement 
opportunities for all wildlife species across the NRM. Although this 
linkage work is not directly associated with the wolf population, it 
may benefit wolves even after delisting.
    No critical habitat was ever, nor required to be, designated in the 
NRM for wolves under Section 4 of the Act. Critical habitat can only be 
designated under the Act for threatened and endangered species. There 
is no legal basis to designate critical habitat for the delisted NRM 
DPS.
    Issue 34: Some commenters stated that we failed to consider the 
impacts of State hunts on the social structure of wolf packs.
    Response 34: This issue is now considered under Factor E below.
    Issue 35: Some commenters encouraged us to investigate human 
dimensions with a protocol that would allow quantification of changes 
in the attitudes of the general public, farmers, hunters, and other 
stakeholders.
    Response 35: We agree that the values people hold about wolves may 
provide valuable insight into successful management strategies (Peek et 
al. 1991, p. 15). The States have already conducted surveys about human 
values towards wolves (Idaho 2007, Appendix A; as one example) and will 
likely continue to do so in the future. We believe this information may 
be helpful to formulate State policies. However, such monitoring is not 
required by the Act in order to justify delisting.

Significant Portion of Range

    Issue 36: Some commenters expressed dissenting views and 
interpretations of the Act's phrase ``significant portion of its 
range'' (SPR) in the definition of a threatened or an endangered 
species. Several believed that ``range'' should mean historical range 
and provided us with Vucetich et al. (2006) as support for their 
position. Others opined that our definition was the same used in our 
2003 rule that was invalidated by the court (68 FR 15804, April 1, 
2003). Still others suggested our consideration of SPR should consider 
all suitable or potential habitat.
    Response 36: On March 16, 2007, the Solicitor of the Department of 
the Interior issued a memorandum opinion with an extensive evaluation 
of the meaning of ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (Department of the Interior, Office 
of the Solicitor 2007). As elaborated in this opinion, we believe the 
law is clear that ``range'' in this phrase refers to ``current range,'' 
not ``historical range'' and that the Service therefore must focus 
primarily on current range. Data about the historical range and how the 
species came to be extinct in a portion of its historical range may be 
relevant in understanding or predicting whether a species is ``in 
danger of extinction'' in its current range. The fact that a species 
has ceased to exist in what may have been portions of its historical 
range does not necessarily mean that it is ``in danger of extinction'' 
in a significant portion of the range where it currently exists. For 
the purposes of this rule, ``range'' includes all of the NRM DPS (as 
identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1). Thus, our 
five-factor analysis analyzed threats across all portions of the NRM 
DPS.

Public Involvement

    Issue 37: Some thought that the Service should have provided 
additional opportunities to learn more about the proposal and to 
provide comments including additional public hearings. Specifically, we 
received requests for hearings in Denver, CO, Seattle, WA, Portland, 
OR, and Jackson, WY.
    Response 37: We believe that we provided ample opportunity for 
public comment including public comment periods totaling 120 days and 
eight public hearings. Comments could be hand-delivered to us or 
submitted to us via e-mail, mail, the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, fax, 
or public hearing testimony. We have provided public comment 
opportunities beyond the basic requirements of the Act and other 
Federal rulemaking procedures.
    We also alerted interested parties to the details of public 
hearings and opportunities for public comment. Public hearing times and 
locations and other avenues to comment were announced in the Federal 
Register, posted on our Web site and in our weekly wolf reports, and 
publicized in local and national press releases. All comments, whether 
presented at a public hearing or provided in another manner, received 
the same review and consideration.
    The Act requires that we hold one public hearing if requested; we 
held 8 public hearings. We selected locations that were within a 
reasonable driving distance of people who live near wolves

[[Page 10534]]

and in every State within the NRM DPS. Commenting via e-mail, hand 
delivery, or letter allowed unlimited space to express comments, as 
opposed to the public hearing format, which limited comments to three 
minutes in order to provide an opportunity for all attending to speak. 
More than 283,000 comments were received.

Scientific Analyses

    Issue 38: Some suggested that the Service should conduct a 
population viability analysis (PVA) or other additional modeling 
exercises or analysis (e.g. International Union for the Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN) guidelines) before delisting.
    Response 38: The Act requires that we use the best scientific data 
available when we make decisions to list, reclassify, or delist a 
species. PVAs can be valuable as a tool to help us understand the 
population dynamics of a rare species (White 2000). They can be useful 
in identifying gaps in our knowledge of the demographic parameters that 
are most important to a species' survival, but they cannot tell us how 
many individuals are necessary to avoid extinction. The difficulty of 
applying PVA techniques to wolves has been discussed by Fritts and 
Carbyn (1995) and Boitani (2003). Problems include: Our inability to 
provide accurate input information for the probability of occurrence 
of, and impact from, catastrophic events (such as a major disease 
outbreak or prey base collapse); Our inability to incorporate all the 
complexities and feedback loops inherent in wild systems and agency 
adaptive management strategies; our inability to provide realistic 
inputs for the influences of environmental variation (such as annual 
fluctuations in winter severity and the resulting impacts on prey 
abundance and vulnerability); temporal variation; selective outbreeding 
(vonHoldt et al. 2007); individual heterogeneity; and difficulty in 
dealing with the spatial aspects of extreme territoriality and the 
long-distance dispersals shown by wolves. Relatively minor changes in 
any of these input values into a theoretical model can result in vastly 
different outcomes.
    Thus, we believe conducting a PVA type analysis on the effect of 
wolf population management would be of limited value in the NRM DPS. 
Instead, we relied upon an extensive body of empirical data on wolves 
and the NRM wolf population. We believe the State commitments for 
adaptive management preclude the usefulness of theorizing about the 
potential status of the NRM wolf population under fixed criteria. We 
also utilized models that employed PVA-like parameters and analysis to 
help identify potentially suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS now and 
into the future (Carroll et al. 2003, 2006; Carroll 2006). The IUCN 
Redlist (IUCN 2007; http://www.iucnredlist.org; Bangs and Smith in 
press) considers gray wolves in North America a species of least 
concern and does not list regional or local populations. Wolves in the 
NRM DPS are simply the southwestern tip of a biologically-secure 
contiguous North American wolf population containing tens of thousands 
of individuals.
    While some suggested that we conduct a PVA based on maintenance of 
30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves or capping a wolf population at an 
arbitrary level, we believe this would lead to an inaccurate and 
misleading conclusion. Any such analysis would ignore the fluctuating 
nature of wildlife populations, actual requirements of the recovery 
goal, and the States' commitments to manage well above that level and 
to adjust their management strategies should the wolf population ever 
appear not to be meeting the State's management objectives.
    Issue 39: Some commenters felt that it was difficult to judge the 
scientific validity of the science we relied upon because some of the 
science and literature was gray literature, had not been peer reviewed, 
was in preparation, or was through personal communication.
    Response 39: While we attempt to use peer-reviewed literature to 
the maximum extent possible, the Act requires us to make our decision 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Because we 
have so many ongoing research and monitoring projects, new data are 
constantly being collected, analyzed, peer reviewed, and published. 
Such information often represents the best scientific data available 
(Service et al. 2007, pp. 64, 114, 183, 213), which the Service cannot 
ignore. All citations are available upon request.

Relisting Criteria

    Issue 40: Some comments suggested we develop a clear, unequivocal 
set of criteria for automatic relisting. Some comments argued that 
monitoring is not sufficient if the results of investigations are not 
promptly incorporated in policy and management, and this type of rapid 
response requires availability of contingency funds, clear roles and 
authorities, and the power to impose the necessary actions on all 
involved partners. They suggest, that because the effectiveness of the 
monitoring program depends ``* * * upon adequate funding to provide 
research results with scientifically acceptable confidence limits,'' 
the monitoring plan should have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 
years before delisting occurs.
    Response 40: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed to monitor 
the wolf population according to the breeding pair standard and to 
publish annual reports of their activities for at least the first 5 
years after delisting. We will post this information and our analysis 
of it on our Web site annually.
    We believe that our criteria for relisting are clear. Four 
scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of 
threats to determine if relisting was warranted including: (1) If the 
wolf population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf 
population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves 
in either Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; (2) if the wolf population 
segment in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs or 
150 wolves in any one of those States for 3 consecutive years; (3) if 
the wolf population in Wyoming outside of YNP falls below 7 breeding 
pairs for 3 consecutive years; or (4) if a change in State law or 
management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the 
wolf population. All such reviews would be made available for public 
review and comment, including peer review by select species experts.
    Any such status review would analyze status relative to the 
definition of threatened or endangered considering the 5 factors 
outlined in section 4(a)(1). If, at any time, data indicate that 
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. If 
emergency listing was instituted, we would then have 240 days to 
complete a conventional listing rule before the protections of the 
emergency rule would expire.
    Funding for government programs is never certain at any level, but 
the funding to support wolf management activities of the various 
Federal and State agencies in the NRM has been consistently obligated 
for the past 20 years, and we have a high level of confidence that the 
resources necessary to carry out the monitoring and management programs 
will continue for the foreseeable future. We may provide Federal 
funding for Federal monitoring requirements.

Use of Section 6 Agreements for States Outside the NRM DPS

    Issue 41: Our proposal solicited comments regarding our intention 
to use

[[Page 10535]]

ESA section 6 agreements to allow States outside the NRM DPS with 
Service-approved wolf management plans to assume management of listed 
wolves, including nonlethal and lethal control of problem wolves. Some 
comments suggested this approach was inappropriate while others 
applauded the idea.
    Response 41: This issue is not directly related to delisting in the 
NRM DPS and has been removed from this final rule. We will work with 
adjacent States to evaluate the appropriate mechanisms for States to 
manage listed wolves, including control of problem wolves.

Miscellaneous Issues Not Germane to This Rulemaking

    Issue 42: Some comments pointed out the positive and negative 
economic impacts of wolves, especially related to tourism in YNP, 
livestock depredation, and competition with hunters for surplus big 
game.
    Response 42: Under the Act, listing decisions are not to consider 
economic factors. That said, we believe wolf-related tourism in places 
like YNP will not be affected by delisting. Additionally, State 
management will reduce economic losses caused by livestock depredation 
and competition with hunters for wild ungulates.
    Issue 43: Many comments were made on issues that were not related 
to or affected by this rulemaking. Most often these issues involved 
strongly held personal opinions or perceptions about Federal, State, or 
Tribal government or authorities, property rights, methods of take, 
risks to human safety, negative affects to hunting, outfitting, 
livestock production, tourism, ecosystem restoration, the U.S. 
Constitution, wildlife management in general, wolves and wolf 
management, and modifications to the NRM experimental population 
special 10(j) rule.
    Response 43: While we respect these personal values, they are 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as 
including any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and 
any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that 
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), 
we may remove the protections of the Act if the best available 
scientific and commercial data substantiate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered; or (3) the original scientific 
data used at the time the species was classified were in error.
    A species may be delisted as recovered only if the best scientific 
and commercial data available indicate that it is no longer endangered 
or threatened. Determining whether a species meets the recovered 
definition requires consideration of the five categories of threats 
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already 
listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is an 
evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the 
removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion 
of its range'' refers to the range in which the species currently 
exists. For the purposes of this rule, ``range'' includes all of the 
NRM DPS (as identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1).
    Evaluating whether the species should be considered threatened or 
endangered in all or a significant portion of its range is a multiple-
step analysis. If we determine that the species is endangered 
throughout all of its range, we list it as endangered throughout its 
range and no further analysis is necessary. If not, we then evaluate if 
the species meets the definition of threatened throughout all of its 
range. If the species is threatened in all of its range, we list the 
species as threatened and consider if any significant portions of its 
range warrant listing as endangered. If we determine that the species 
is not threatened or endangered in all of its range, we consider 
whether any significant portions of its range warrant consideration as 
threatened or endangered. If we determine that the species is 
threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, the 
provisions of the Act would only apply to the significant portion of 
the species' range where it is threatened or endangered.
    Foreseeable future is defined by the Services on a case-by-case 
basis, taking into account a variety of species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, demography, threat projection 
timeframes, and environmental variability. ``Foreseeable'' is commonly 
viewed as ``such as reasonably can or should be anticipated: such that 
a person of ordinary prudence would expect it to occur or exist under 
the circumstances'' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996; Western 
Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho 2005; CV 04-168-MHW). For the NRM 
DPS, the foreseeable future differs for each factor potentially 
impacting the DPS. For most factors impacting the NRM DPS, we believe a 
window of up to 30 years is foreseeable. We consider this to be a 
reasonable timeframe because: (1) It took approximately this long from 
listing for public attitudes and regulations to result in a social 
climate that promoted and allowed for wolf restoration in the WGL DPS 
and NRM DPS; (2) this timeframe represents about ten wolf generations 
(3 years each) which is about how long it took for wolves in both the 
NRM DPS and WGL DPS to expand numbers and achieve their biological 
recovery criteria; and (3) available habitat and potential future 
distribution models (Carroll et al. 2003, 536; Carroll et al. 2006, 
Figure 6) predict out about this far. For some threat factors, a longer 
time horizon may be appropriate. For example, in our consideration of 
genetics, we reviewed a paper that looked 100 years into the future 
(vonHoldt et al. 2007). When evaluating the available information, with 
respect to foreseeable future, we take into account reduced confidence 
as we forecast further into the future.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the NRM gray wolf DPS within 
the foreseeable future.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The NRM DPS is approximately 980,803 km<SUP>2</SUP> (378,690 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>) and includes 402,606 km<SUP>2</SUP> (155,447 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>) of Federal land (41 percent); 49,803 km<SUP>2</SUP> 
(19,229 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) of State land (5 percent); 32,942 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (12,719 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) of Tribal land (3 percent); 
427,998 km<SUP>2</SUP> (165,251 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) of private land (44 
percent) (the remaining area is either water or lands in Washington 
that were not categorized into ownership in the geographic information 
system (GIS) layers we analyzed). The NRM DPS contains large amounts of 
three Ecoregion Divisions--Temperate Steppe (prairie) (312,148 
km<SUP>2</SUP> [120,521 mi<SUP>2</SUP>]); Temperate Steppe Mountain 
(forest) (404,921 km<SUP>2</SUP> [156,341

[[Page 10536]]

mi<SUP>2</SUP>]); and Temperate Desert (high desert) (263,544 
km<SUP>2</SUP> [101,755 mi<SUP>2</SUP>]) (Bailey 1995, p. iv). The 
following analysis focuses on suitable habitat within the NRM DPS and 
areas currently occupied by persistent wolf packs (i.e., core recovery 
areas) (which may include intermittent unsuitable habitat). Then, 
unsuitable habitat is examined. A number of threats to habitat are 
examined including climate change, increased human populations and 
development (including oil and gas), connectivity, ungulate 
populations, and livestock grazing.
    Suitable Habitat--Wolves once occupied or transited all of the NRM 
DPS. However, much of the wolf's historical range within the NRM DPS 
has been modified for human use and is no longer suitable habitat. We 
have reviewed the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat 
relative to the biological requirements of wolves. In doing so we 
reviewed two models, Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 555-558) and Carroll et 
al. (2003, pp. 536-548; 2006, pp. 27-31; Carroll 2005, p. 1-3), to help 
us gauge the current amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 
in the NRM DPS. Both models ranked areas as suitable habitat if they 
had characteristics that suggested they might have a 50 percent or 
greater chance of supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat in the 
NRM DPS was typically characterized in both models as public land with 
mountainous, forested habitat that contains abundant year-round wild 
ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic 
livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 
agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically 
just the opposite (i.e., private land, flat open prairie or desert, low 
or seasonal wild ungulate populations, high road density, high numbers 
of year-round domestic livestock including many domestic sheep, high 
levels of agricultural use, and many people). Despite their 
similarities, these two models had substantial differences in the area 
analyzed, GIS data layers, inputs, and assumptions. As a result, the 
Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. (2006, p. 33) models 
predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable wolf habitat in 
areas examined by both models (i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming).
    Oakleaf's model was a more intensive effort that only looked at 
potential wolf habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 
2006, p. 555). It used roads accessible to two-wheel and four-wheel 
vehicles, topography (slope and elevation), land ownership, relative 
ungulate density (based on State harvest statistics), cattle (Bos sp.) 
and sheep density, vegetation characteristics (ecoregions and land 
cover), and human density to comprise its GIS data layers. Oakleaf 
analyzed the characteristics of areas occupied and not occupied by NRM 
wolf packs through 2000 to predict what other areas in the NRM might be 
suitable or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf et al. 
2006, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) ranked 170,228 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (65,725 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) as suitable habitat in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    In contrast, Carroll's model analyzed a much larger area (all 12 
western States and northern Mexico) in a less specific way (Carroll et 
al. 2006, pp. 27-31). Carroll's model used density and type of roads, 
human population density and distribution, slope, and vegetative 
greenness as ``pseudo-habitat'' to estimate relative ungulate density 
to predict associated wolf survival and fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 
2006, p. 29). The combination of the GIS model and wolf population 
parameters were then used to develop estimates of habitat theoretically 
suitable for wolf pack persistence. In addition, Carroll predicted the 
potential effect on suitable wolf habitat of increased road development 
and human density expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 30-31). 
Within the NRM DPS, Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 27-31) ranked 277,377 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (107,096 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) as suitable including 105,993 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (40,924 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) in Montana; 82,507 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (31,856 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) in Idaho; 77,202 km<SUP>2</SUP> 
(29,808 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) in Wyoming; 6,620 km<SUP>2</SUP> (2,556 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>) in Oregon; 4,286 km<SUP>2</SUP> (1,655 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) 
in Utah; and 769 km<SUP>2</SUP> (297 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) in Washington. 
Approximately 96 percent of the suitable habitat (265,703 
km<SUP>2</SUP> (102,588 mi<SUP>2</SUP>)) within the NRM DPS occurred in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. According to the Carroll model, 
approximately 28 percent of the NRM DPS would be ranked as suitable 
habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-31).
    The Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31-34) model tended to be more 
generous in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions 
than the Oakleaf (et al. 2006, pp. 558-560) model or that our field 
observations indicate is realistic. But Carroll's model provided a 
valuable relative measure across the western U.S. upon which 
comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not incorporate 
livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf model did 
(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-29; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 556). Thus, 
the Carroll model did not consider those conditions where wolf 
mortality is high and habitat unsuitable because of chronic conflict 
with livestock. During the past 20 years, wolf packs have been unable 
to persist in areas intensively used for livestock production, 
primarily because of agency control of problem wolves and illegal 
killing.
    Furthermore, many of the more isolated primary habitat patches that 
the Carroll model predicted as currently suitable were predicted to be 
unsuitable by the year 2025, indicating they were likely on the lower 
end of what ranked as suitable habitat in that model (Carroll et al. 
2006, p. 32). Because these types of areas were typically too small to 
support breeding pairs and too isolated from the core population to 
receive enough dispersing wolves to overcome higher rates of human-
caused mortality, we do not believe they are currently suitable habitat 
based upon our data on wolf pack persistence for the past 20 years 
(Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1999-2007, 
Figure 1).
    Despite the substantial differences in each model's analysis area, 
GIS data layers, inputs, and assumptions, both models predicted that 
most suitable wolf habitat in the NRM was in northwestern Montana, 
central Idaho, and the GYA, which is the area currently occupied by the 
NRM gray wolf DPS. Carroll's model also indicated that these three 
areas had suitable habitat between them and it would remain relatively 
intact in the future (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 25). However, northwest 
Montana and Idaho were much more connected to each other and the wolf 
population in Canada than to the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 554). 
Collectively the three core areas were surrounded by large areas of 
unsuitable habitat.
    These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions 
and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their 
relationships to wolf pack persistence, rather than as predictors of 
absolute acreages or areas that can actually be successfully occupied 
by wolf packs. Additionally, both models generally support earlier 
Service predictions about wolf habitat suitability in the NRM (Service 
1980, p. 9; 1987, p. 7; 1994, p. vii). Because theoretical models only 
define suitable habitat as those areas that have characteristics with a 
50 percent or more probability of supporting wolf packs, it is 
impossible to give an exact acreage of suitable habitat that can 
actually be successfully occupied. It is important to note that these 
areas also have up to a 50 percent chance of not supporting wolf packs.
    We considered data on the location of suitable wolf habitat from a 
number of

[[Page 10537]]

sources in developing our estimate of currently suitable wolf habitat 
in the NRM DPS. Specifically, we considered the recovery areas 
identified in the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), the 
primary analysis areas analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for the GYA (63,700 mi<SUP>2</SUP> [24,600 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>]) and central Idaho (53,600 mi<SUP>2</SUP> [20,700 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>]) (Service 1994, p. iv), information derived from 
theoretical models by Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and Oakleaf et al. 
(2006, p. 554), our nearly 20 years of field experience managing wolves 
in the NRM, and locations of persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs 
since recovery has been achieved. Collectively, this evidence leads us 
to concur with the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) model's predictions 
that the most important habitat attributes for wolf pack persistence 
are forest cover, public land, high elk density, and low livestock 
density. Therefore, we believe that Oakleaf's calculations of the 
amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat available for 
persistent wolf pack formation, in the parts of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming analyzed, represent the most reasonable prediction of suitable 
wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    The area we conclude that is suitable habitat is generally depicted 
in Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559). Generally, suitable habitat is 
located in: Western Montana west of I-15 and south of I-90; Idaho north 
of Interstate 84; and the northwest corner of Wyoming including those 
areas east of State highway 120, along the western border of the Wind 
River Reservation, and USDA Forest Service (USFS) lands north of 
Boulder, WY, to the Idaho border. A comparison of actual wolf pack 
distribution in 2006 (Service et al. 2007, Figure 1) and Oakleaf et 
al.'s (2006, p. 559) prediction of suitable habitat indicates that 
nearly all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is currently 
occupied and areas predicted to be unsuitable remain largely 
unoccupied.
    Although Carroll determined there may be some (4%) potentially 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS outside of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming, we believe it is marginally suitable at best and is 
insignificant to wolf population recovery because it occurs in small 
isolated fragmented areas. While some areas predicted to be unsuitable 
habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have been temporarily occupied 
and used by wolves or even packs, we still consider them as largely 
unsuitable habitat. Generally, wolf packs in such areas have failed to 
persist long enough to be categorized as breeding pairs and 
successfully contribute toward recovery. An example of this occurred in 
2006 when wolf packs formed in the Bighorn Mountains and near Pinedale, 
Wyoming (Service et al. 2007). Neither area was classified as having a 
breeding pair in 2006 and by 2007 at least four packs had either 
disappeared from the areas or been controlled because of chronic 
conflicts with livestock. Therefore, while these areas are routinely 
used by dispersing wolves, we consider such areas as containing 
unsuitable habitat and believe that dispersing wolves attempting to 
colonize those areas are unlikely to form breeding pairs or contribute 
to population recovery.
    Unoccupied Suitable Habitat--Habitat suitability modeling indicates 
that the three NRM DPS core recovery areas are atypical of other 
habitats in the western U.S. because suitable habitat in those core 
areas occurs in such large contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; 
Larson 2004, p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 
559). It is likely that without core refugia areas, like YNP or the 
central Idaho wilderness, that provide a steady source of dispersing 
wolves, other potentially suitable wolf habitat would not be capable of 
sustaining wolf breeding pairs. Some habitat ranked by models as 
suitable adjacent to core refugia may be able to support wolf breeding 
pairs, while other habitat farther away from a strong source of 
dispersing wolves may not be able to support persistent packs. This 
fact is important when considering suitable habitat, as defined by the 
Carroll (et al. 2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf (et al. 2006, p. 559) models, 
because wolf populations can persist despite very high rates of 
mortality only if they have high rates of immigration (Fuller et al. 
2003, p. 183). Therefore, model predictions regarding habitat 
suitability do not always translate into successful wolf occupancy and 
wolf breeding pairs.
    Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 km<SUP>2</SUP> [1,000 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>]) patches of theoretically suitable habitat (Carroll et 
al. 2006, p. 34; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) (typically, isolated 
mountain ranges) often possess higher mortality risk for wolves because 
they are surrounded by, or in close proximity to, unsuitable habitat 
with a high mortality risk. In addition, pack territories often form 
along distinct geological features (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such 
as the crest of a rugged mountain range, so useable space for wolves in 
isolated, long, narrow mountain ranges may be reduced by half or more, 
and thus are often too small to support a wolf breeding pair. This 
phenomenon, in which the quality and quantity of suitable habitat is 
diminished because of interactions with surrounding less-suitable 
habitat, is known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400-401). Edge 
effects are exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-
to-area ratios (i.e., those that are long and narrow, like isolated 
mountain ranges) and in species with large territories, like wolves, 
because they are more likely to encounter surrounding unsuitable 
habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). Because of edge 
effects, some habitat areas outside the core areas may rank as suitable 
in models, but are unlikely to actually be successfully occupied by 
persistent wolf packs. For these reasons, we believe that the NRM DPS 
will remain anchored by the three core recovery areas. These areas will 
continue to provide a constant source of dispersing wolves into 
surrounding areas, supplementing wolf packs and breeding pairs in 
adjacent, but less secure suitable habitat.
    Habitat Currently Occupied By Persistent Wolf Packs--The area in 
the NRM DPS currently occupied by persistent wolf packs was calculated 
by drawing a line around the outer points of radio-telemetry locations 
of all known wolf pack territories in 2006 (Service et al. 2007, Figure 
1, minus 4 packs that did not persist). We defined the habitat 
currently occupied by persistent wolf packs as that area confirmed as 
being used by resident wolves to raise pups or that is used by two or 
more territorial wolves at the end of any year (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-
6). Typically by the end of the year only 50 percent of packs meet the 
criteria to be classified as breeding pairs. The overall distribution 
of wolf packs has been similar since 2000, despite a wolf population 
that has more than doubled (Service et al. 2001-2007, Figure 1; Bangs 
et al. in press). Because the States have committed to maintain a wolf 
population above the minimum recovery levels (achieved in 2002), we 
expect this general distribution will be maintained. Habitat occupied 
by persistent wolf packs changed little from 2004 (275,533 
km<SUP>2</SUP> [106,384 mi<SUP>2</SUP>]); to 2005 (260,535 
km<SUP>2</SUP> [100,593 mi<SUP>2</SUP>]); to 2006 (minus four packs 
that did not persist in 2007--295,116 km<SUP>2</SUP> [113,949 
mi<SUP>2</SUP>]) or 2007 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, Figure 1; 
Service et al. 2008 in prep., Figure 1).
    We included areas between the three core recovery areas as habitat 
occupied by persistent wolf packs, because they are important for 
connectivity between areas, even though wolf packs or breeding pairs 
did not persist in certain portions of these areas. While models ranked 
some of this habitat as unsuitable, these intervening areas are

[[Page 10538]]

important to maintaining the metapopulation structure, because 
dispersing wolves routinely travel through these areas and packs 
occasionally occupy them (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6; Bangs 2002, p. 3; 
Jimenez et al. in prep.). This would include areas like the Flathead 
Valley and other smaller valleys intensively used for agriculture and a 
few of the smaller, isolated mountain ranges surrounded by agricultural 
lands in western Montana.
    As of the end of 2006, we estimated that persistent wolf packs 
occupied approximately 295,116 km\2\ (113,949 mi\2\) of habitat in 
parts of Montana (136,492 km\2\ [52,702 mi\2\]), Idaho (118,554 km\2\ 
[45,776 mi\2\]), and Wyoming (40,070 km\2\ [15,472 mi\2\]) (Service et 
al. 2007, Figure 1--minus 4 packs that did not persist). Although 
habitat occupied by persistent wolf packs includes some prairie (4,488 
km\2\ [1,733 mi\2\]) and some high desert (24,478 km\2\ [9,451 mi\2\]), 
wolf packs have not used these habitat types successfully (Service et 
al. 2007, Figure 1--minus 4 packs that did not persist). Since 1986, no 
persistent wolf pack has had a majority of its home range in high 
desert or prairie habitat. Landownership in the area occupied by 
persistent wolf packs is 191,473 km\2\ (73,931 mi\2\) Federal (65 
percent); 13,522 km\2\ (5,225 mi\2\) State (4.6 percent); 6,594 km\2\ 
(2,546 mi\2\) Tribal (2.2 percent); and 80,512 km\2\ (31,087 mi\2\) 
private (27 percent) (Service et al. 2007, Figure 1--minus 4 packs that 
did not persist).
    We determined that the current wolf population resembles a three-
lobed metapopulation and that the overall area used by persistent wolf 
packs in the NRM DPS has not significantly expanded since the 
population achieved its recovery goal in 2002. Stagnant outer 
distribution patterns for the past 7 years indicate there is probably 
limited suitable habitat for the NRM wolf population to expand 
significantly beyond its current outer borders. Carroll's model 
predicted that 165,503 km\2\ (63,901 mi\2\) of suitable habitat (62 
percent) was within the area occupied by persistent wolf packs. 
However, the model's remaining potentially suitable habitat (38 
percent) was often fragmented and in smaller, more isolated patches 
(Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35) and we have determined that such areas do 
not provide habitat suitable to support persistent wolf packs.
    Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each have committed to manage for at 
least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves while never letting the 
population fall below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in mid-winter to 
ensure long-term viability of the NRM DPS. The NRM DPS occupies nearly 
100 percent of the core recovery areas recommended in the 1987 recovery 
plan (i.e., central Idaho, the GYA, and northwestern Montana) (Service 
1987, p. 23) and nearly 100 percent of the primary analysis areas (the 
areas where suitable habitat was predicted to exist and the wolf 
population would live) analyzed for wolf reintroduction in central 
Idaho and the GYA (Service 1994, p. 1:6). This pattern will continue, 
because management plans for public lands in the NRM DPS will result in 
forest cover, high ungulate densities, low to moderate road and 
livestock densities, and other factors critical to maintaining suitable 
wolf habitat.
    Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range--Establishing a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS did not require land-use 
restrictions or curtailment of traditional land-uses, because there was 
enough suitable habitat, enough wild ungulates, and sufficiently few 
livestock conflicts to allow wolves to recover under existing 
conditions (Bangs et al. 2004, pp. 95-96). We do not believe that any 
traditional land-use practices in the NRM DPS need be modified to 
maintain a recovered NRM DPS into the foreseeable future. We do not 
anticipate overall habitat changes in the NRM DPS occurring at a 
magnitude that will threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable future, 
because 71 percent of the occupied habitat is in public ownership that 
is managed for multiple uses that are complementary with suitable wolf 
habitat and maintenance of viable wolf populations (Carroll et al. 
2003, p. 542; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560).
    The GYA and central Idaho core recovery areas, 63,714 km\2\ (24,600 
mi\2\) and 53,613 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\), respectively, are primarily 
composed of public lands (Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest 
contiguous blocks of suitable habitat within the NRM DPS. Public lands 
in National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas, and large blocks of 
contiguous mountainous forested habitat are largely unavailable or 
unsuitable for intensive development. Central Idaho and the GYA provide 
secure wolf habitat and abundant ungulate populations, with about 
99,300 ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in central Idaho (Service 1994, 
pp. viii-ix). These areas are considered secure because they are not 
available for development due to their land-use classifications, 
management guidelines for other species (e.g., grizzly bears), habitat, 
access, and geological characteristics (Service 1993, 1996, 2007c; 
Serhveen et al. 2003; USFS 2006). Thus, they will continue to provide 
suitable habitat for a resident wolf population and will be a 
dependable source of dispersing wolves to help maintain a viable wolf 
population in the NRM DPS (Service 1994, p. 1:4). The central Idaho 
recovery area has 24,281 km\2\ (9,375 mi\2\) of designated wilderness 
at its core (Service 1994, p. 3:85). The core of the GYA recovery area 
includes over 8,094 km\2\ (3,125 mi\2\) in YNP and about 16,187 km\2\ 
(6,250 mi\2\) of designated wilderness (although these areas are less 
useful to wolves, except seasonally, due to high elevation) (Service 
1994, p. 3:45). These areas are in public ownership and are not useful 
or available for human development at a scale that could affect their 
overall suitability for wolves. No foreseeable habitat-related threats 
would prevent these areas from supporting a wolf population that 
exceeds recovery levels.
    While the northwestern Montana recovery area (basically west of I-
15 and north of I-90 in Montana and Idaho) (84,800 km\2\ (33,386 
mi\2\)) also has a core of protected suitable habitat (Glacier National 
Park, the Bob Marshal Wilderness Complex, and extensive USFS lands), it 
is not as high quality or as contiguous as that in either central Idaho 
or GYA. The primary reason for this is that many ungulates do not 
winter in the Park or Wilderness areas because these are higher in 
elevation. Most wolf packs in northwestern Montana live west of the 
Continental Divide, where forest habitats are a fractured mix of 
private and public lands (Service et al. 1989-2007, Figure 1). This mix 
exposes wolves to high levels of human-caused mortality, and thus this 
area supports smaller and fewer wolf packs. Wolf dispersal into 
northwestern Montana from the more stable resident packs in the core 
protected area (largely the North Fork of the Flathead River along the 
eastern edge of Glacier National Park and the few large river drainages 
in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex) and the abundant National USFS 
lands largely used for recreation and timber production rather than 
livestock production helps to maintain that portion of the NRM DPS 
(Bangs et al. 1998, p. 786). Wolves also disperse into northwestern 
Montana (and central Idaho) from Canada and some packs have trans-
boundary territories, helping to maintain the NRM DPS (Boyd et al. 
1995, p. 136). Conversely, wolf dispersal from northwestern Montana 
into Canada, where wolves are much less protected, continues to draw 
some wolves into vacant or low-density

[[Page 10539]]

habitats in Canada where they are subject to liberal hunting and agency 
control (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 790). Despite mortalities that occur in 
Canada, the trans-boundary movements of wolves and wolf packs led to 
the original establishment of wolves in Montana, and will continue to 
have an overall positive effect on wolf genetic diversity and 
demography in the northwest Montana portion of the NRM DPS.
    Sufficient suitable habitat exists so that the NRM DPS can be 
easily maintained above recovery levels. The most important suitable 
wolf habitat is in public ownership, and the State and Federal land-
management agencies have been managing that habitat for several decades 
and plan to continue to manage it so it will continue to provide forage 
and security for high ungulate populations, sufficient cover for wolf 
security, moderate and seasonal livestock grazing, and low road 
density. Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 31) predicted future 
wolf habitat suitability under several scenarios through 2025, 
including increased human population growth and road development. 
Projections of human population growth, associated development, and 
road construction and other threats were not predicted to alter wolf 
habitat suitability in the NRM DPS enough to cause the wolf population 
to fall below recovery levels in the foreseeable future. Modeling also 
predicted that habitat suitability could be increased beyond current 
levels by simply reducing roads on public lands (Mech et al. 1988; 86-
87), a process underway in the NRM (Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Serhveen 
et al. 2003; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 25; Brown 2006, 1-3).
    The recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 13), the metapopulation 
structure recommended by the 1994 EIS (Service 1994, pp. 6:74-75), and 
subsequent investigations (Bangs 2002, p. 3) recognize the importance 
of habitat connectivity between northwestern Montana, central Idaho, 
and the GYA (See Factor E). There appears to be enough habitat 
connectivity between occupied wolf habitat in Canada, northwestern 
Montana, and Idaho to ensure exchange of sufficient numbers of 
dispersing wolves to maintain demographic and genetic diversity in the 
NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; 
Jimenez et al. in prep; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). To date, from 
radio-telemetry monitoring, we have documented routine wolf movement 
between Canada and northwestern Montana (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 544; 
Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1095-1096; Sime 2007), routine wolf 
movement between Idaho and Montana, including several transborder 
packs, and at least five wolves have dispersed into the GYA. Because 
YNP is saturated with resident packs, only one individual is known to 
have dispersed into YNP itself (Boyd et al. 1995, pp. iii-3-1; Jimenez 
et al. in prep; vonHoldt et al. 2007; Service et al. 2007, Figure 1; 
Service 2007b, p. 1). Furthermore, because only about 30 percent of the 
wolf population has been radio-collared, additional dispersal (perhaps 
3 times that documented or +1 migrant per year into the GYA) has 
undoubtedly occurred. The documented movement of wolves described above 
demonstrates that current habitat conditions allow dispersing wolves to 
occasionally travel from one recovery area to another. Finally, the 
Montana State wolf management plan (the key State regarding 
connectivity) commits to maintaining natural connectivity to ensure the 
genetic integrity of the NRM DPS by promoting land uses, such as 
traditional ranching, that enhance wildlife habitat and conservation. 
In addition, the Montana (Montana 2003, p. 35), Idaho (IDFG 2002, p. 
18), and Wyoming (WYGF 2007, p. 17) State wolf management plans all 
commit to maintaining the meta-population structure of the NRM DPS and 
maintaining sufficient genetic diversity, by various methods including 
relocation if necessary, to ensure the long-term viability of the wolf 
population of the NRM DPS.
    Other Components of Wolf Habitat--Another important factor in 
maintaining wolf populations is the native ungulate population. Wild 
ungulate prey in these three areas are composed mainly of elk, white-
tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and (only in the GYA) bison. Bighorn 
sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn antelope also are common but not 
important, at least to date, as wolf prey. In total, 100,000-250,000 
wild ungulates are estimated in each State where wolf packs currently 
exist (Service 1994, pp. viii-ix). The States in the NRM DPS have 
managed resident ungulate populations for decades and maintain them at 
densities that would easily support a recovered wolf population; State 
ungulate management plans commit them to do so into the future (See 
Idaho 2007, pp. 1-2; Curtis 2007, pp. 14-21 as an examples of such 
plans). We know of no foreseeable condition that would cause a decline 
in ungulate populations significant enough to threaten the recovered 
status of the NRM DPS.
    Cattle and sheep are at least twice as numerous as wild ungulates 
even on public lands (Service 1994, pp. viii). The only areas that lack 
livestock and that are large enough to support wolf packs are YNP, 
Glacier National Park, some adjacent USFS Wilderness Areas, and parts 
of Wilderness Areas in central Idaho and northwestern Montana. 
Consequently, every wolf pack outside these areas has interacted with 
some livestock, primarily cattle. Livestock and livestock carrion are 
routinely used by wolves, but management discourages chronic killing of 
livestock. Conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the 
annual removal of some wolves (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 131; 2004, p. 92; 
2005, pp. 342-344; Service et al. 2007, Table 5a). See Factors D and E.
    Human growth and development will continue in the NRM, including 
increased development and conversion of private low-density rural lands 
to higher density urban developments, road development and 
transportation facilities (pipelines and energy transmission lines), 
resource extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, and wind development 
in certain areas), and more recreationists on public lands (Robbins 
2007). Despite efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 
1-3), some of this development will make some areas of the NRM DPS less 
suitable for wolf occupancy. However, none of these developments and 
increased human presence will threaten wolf recovery or meaningfully 
impact the amount of suitable wolf habitat in the NRM in the 
foreseeable future. Wolves are a habitat generalist and one of the most 
adaptable large predators in the world, and only became extirpated 
because of deliberate human persecution (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; 
Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330). Land-use restrictions on human development 
were not necessary to recover the wolf population. Even active wolf 
dens can be quite resilient to nonlethal disturbance by humans (Frame 
et al. 2007, p. 316). The vast majority of suitable wolf habitat and 
the current wolf population are secure in mountainous forested Federal 
public land (National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas, and lands 
managed for multiple uses primarily by the USFS but some by the Bureau 
of Land Management) that will not be legally available for or suitable 
to intensive levels of human development. Nearly all oil and gas and 
coal leases that are being developed or are likely to be developed in 
the foreseeable future in the NRM DPS are to the south or east of the 
areas suitable for and currently occupied by persistent wolf packs 
(Robbins 2007; Environmental Working Group 2007). Habitat quality for 
wolves is based

[[Page 10540]]

almost solely on adequate prey and security from excessive human-caused 
mortality.
    Most types of intensive human development predicted in the future 
will occur in areas that have already been extensively modified by 
human activities in the past and are already unsuitable wolf habitat 
(Wyoming 2005, Appendix III). Furthermore, such development is likely 
to continue to be focused at lower elevations, on private lands and in 
open habitats, and outside of currently suitable and currently occupied 
wolf habitat (Robbins 2007). Given the nature, location, and very small 
scale of oil and gas and coal development within the NRM DPS this type 
of development will not affect wolf habitat. Oil and gas and coal 
reserves and leases are not located in the mountainous areas that 
comprise suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS (Robbins 2007). In 
addition, State regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, 
and Federal land management practices/guidelines (see a USFS Management 
Plan as an example; USFS 2006) in the NRM DPS restrict the location and 
extent of development associated with them on public lands so we do not 
believe these activities will substantially impact prey or wolf 
security in suitable habitat.
    Development on private land near suitable habitat will continue to 
expose wolves to more conflicts and higher risk of human-caused 
mortality. However, we believe the rate of conflict is well within the 
wolf population's biological mortality threshold (generally between 
34%-50% annually), especially given the large amount of secure habitat 
that will support a recovered wolf population and will provide a 
reliable and constant source of dispersing wolves (Mech 1989, pp. 387-
8). Wolf populations persist in many areas of the world that are far 
more developed than the NRM currently is or is likely to be in the 
foreseeable future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-23). Habitat connectivity in 
the NRM may be reduced below current levels, but wolves have 
exceptional abilities to disperse through even unsuitable habitats and 
such impacts would still not threaten the wolf population. (See 
discussions of connectivity and genetics in Factor E). Current habitat 
conditions are adequate to support a wolf population of 1,500 
individuals, and model predictions indicate that development in the NRM 
over the next 25 years is unlikely to change habitat in a manner that 
would threaten the NRM DPS (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 544). The ranges of 
wolves and grizzly bears overlap in many parts of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming, and mandatory habitat guidelines on public lands for grizzly 
bear conservation guarantee and far exceed necessary criteria for 
maintaining suitable habitat for wolves (Service 2007c as one example).
    Given the large number of wolves in each recovery area of the 
nearly contiguous NRM DPS, natural habitat connectivity may be 
important only as it relates to theoretical long-term genetic isolation 
in the GYA without management intervention. The wolf population and 
suitable habitat in the GYA may become more isolated and dispersal into 
the GYA from central Idaho or northwestern Montana less common due to 
future habitat development (Carroll et al 2003, p. 543; Oakleaf et al. 
2006; vonHoldt et al. 2007). In addition, higher rates of human-caused 
mortality are anticipated under State management. Increased rates of 
human-caused mortality may result in more social openings (vacancies 
created when individuals die or disperse) within wolf packs within the 
core recovery areas of northwestern Montana, and central Idaho, 
creating local space for wolves that might otherwise disperse into the 
GYA to search out breeding opportunities or to join existing packs. 
Higher mortality rates will also be more likely to remove individuals 
that might disperse into the outer edges of the GYA because mortality 
rates are already highest along the edges of the core recovery areas 
(Smith 2007a). In contrast, increased rates of human-caused mortality 
in the GYA might create more social openings in existing packs that 
could be filled by wolves dispersing from northwestern Montana and 
central Idaho.
    We believe the former scenario is more likely than the latter and 
that the cumulative result of increased human-caused mortality will 
likely be more genetic isolation of wolves in the GYA. However, some 
level of natural connectivity will continue because of the large amount 
of public land and low human density between the GYA and central Idaho 
and the ability of wolves to disperse rapidly over long distances 
through otherwise unsuitable habitat (Carroll 2006, p. 376). Also the 
GYA will contain more wolves than just those in YNP, including 7 or 
more breeding pairs to be maintained in Wyoming outside of YNP, wolves 
in southwestern Montana (73 wolves in 13 packs comprising 5 breeding 
pairs in 2006), and southeastern Idaho (6 wolves in 1 breeding pair in 
2006). Furthermore, each State has committed to maintain genetic 
diversity at a level that does not threaten wolf population viability 
in the GYA (Idaho 2002, p.18; Montana 2003, p.27; WGFD 2007, p.17), 
which completely addresses this theoretical issue. Regardless, wolves 
in the GYA portion of the NRM DPS would still not become threatened by 
a potential worse-case decrease in genetic diversity in the next 100 
years because other wolf populations have persisted for decades or even 
centuries with even lower genetic diversity (Boitani 2003).
    We recognize the theoretical concerns over the future potential 
impact of natural habitat connectivity and genetic isolation in the 
GYA, and possibly other recovery areas. The States will be required to 
evaluate the wolf population status annually for the first 5 years 
after delisting. If this analysis indicates the wolf population might 
become threatened under a continuation of that same State management 
strategy in the foreseeable future, the States would either adjust 
their management strategies to resolve those issues, or the process to 
evaluate listing all or parts of the NRM DPS under the Act would begin.
    While lone wolves will continue to occasionally disperse outside of 
the NRM DPS core recovery area, it is unlikely that many breeding pairs 
will persist outside of this area, except possibly in parts of eastern 
Washington and northeastern Oregon that abut the large Idaho wolf 
population and where some suitable habitat exists. However, we 
anticipate the establishment of breeding pairs in that portion of the 
NRM DPS will be sporadic because suitable habitat is limited and 
fragmented. The combination of limited suitable habitat and high rates 
of human-caused mortality that will be associated with predatory animal 
status in eastern and southern Wyoming will further reduce the already 
extremely low probability of dispersing wolves successfully 
recolonizing Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, or Nebraska. Likewise, 
increased rates of human-caused mortality in Idaho and Montana will 
likely further inhibit the already low potential for successful wolf 
recolonization of Nevada and the Dakotas, respectively. However, while 
any dispersing wolves in these areas would remain listed as endangered, 
should breeding pairs become established, they will not affect the 
viability of the NRM DPS. Any suitable habitat adjacent to the NRM DPS 
is too fragmented and too far from the NRM DPS core recovery areas to 
provide dispersing wolves back into it to supplement it either 
genetically or demographically.
    The large amount of public lands that cannot or will not be 
developed within the core recovery areas within the NRM

[[Page 10541]]

DPS assures that adequate suitable habitat for wolves will exist into 
the foreseeable future. Even though some habitat degradation will occur 
in the smaller areas of suitable habitat between the core recovery 
areas, the quantity and quality of habitat that will remain will be 
sufficient to maintain some level of natural connectivity into the 
foreseeable future (Carroll et al. 2003 p.32). However, the GYA is the 
most isolated area, and development around its edges is likely to 
continue in the future. The level of development predicted in this area 
is not expected to threaten wolves because habitat in protected public 
lands would remain secure.
    Human populations in the GYA, and the rest of the U.S., are 
expected to increase (Carroll 2006). In the six GYA Wyoming counties 
where wolf breeding pairs will be maintained, the human population is 
projected to increase by roughly 15,000 residents between 2000 and 2020 
(from 105,215 in 2000 to 120,771 by 2020) (Wyoming Department of 
Administration and Information Economic Analysis Division 2005). The 
Montana GYA counties are expected to increase by roughly 35,000 people 
during this same time (from 120,934 in 2000 to 154,800 by 2020) (NPA 
Data Services 2002). We anticipate similar levels of population growth 
in the remaining portions of the NRM DPS given that the West, as a 
region, is projected to increase at rates faster than any other region 
of the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 2005).
    Increasing human populations do not necessarily lead to declining 
predator populations. Mortality can be limited with adequate management 
programs (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), research and monitoring, and 
outreach and education about living with wildlife. In addition, 
conservation groups, on a willing seller basis, have been retiring 
Federal grazing allotments in areas with chronic large-predator/
livestock conflict to benefit large carnivore conservation efforts 
(Fischer 2007). The States, of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, Federal 
land management agencies, Tribes, and private ranch lands in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming already conserve habitat for large populations of 
mountain lions, black bears, and grizzly bears and wolf prey such as 
elk and deer.
    The Service has no need or authority to limit future human 
population growth for wolf conservation in the NRM DPS. The management 
plans of appropriate land management agencies and governments manage 
public lands to limit resource impacts from human use of those lands, 
and these plans are more than adequate to support a recovered wolf 
population (see USDA 2006 as one example). Habitat suitability for 
wolves will change over time with human development, activities, and 
attitudes, but not to the extent that it is likely to threaten wolf 
recovery.
    Summary of Threats to Wolf Habitat--We do not foresee that impacts 
to suitable and potentially suitable habitat will occur at levels that 
will significantly affect wolf numbers or distribution or affect 
population recovery and long-term viability in the NRM DPS. Suitable 
habitat, occupied by persistent wolf packs, is secured by core recovery 
areas in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA, including 
northwestern Wyoming. These areas include Glacier National Park, Grand 
Teton National Park, YNP, numerous USFS Wilderness Areas, and other 
State and Federal public lands. These areas will continue to be managed 
for high ungulate densities, moderate rates of seasonal livestock 
grazing, moderate-to-low road densities associated with abundant native 
prey, low potential for livestock conflicts, and security from 
excessive unregulated human-caused mortality. The core recovery areas 
also are within proximity to one another and have enough public land 
between them to ensure enough natural connectivity for wolf dispersal 
into the foreseeable future. The possible exception is the GYA, where 
some believe human-induced genetic connectivity might be required 
within 100 years (vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 1). We do not share this 
view and explain why in detail under Factor E.
    No significant threats to the suitable habitat in Idaho, Montana, 
and Wyoming are known to exist in the foreseeable future. These areas 
currently support nearly 1,500 wolves and over 100 breeding pairs and 
have long been recognized as the most likely areas to successfully 
support 30 or more breeding pairs of wolves, comprising 300 or more 
individuals in a metapopulation with some dispersal between 
subpopulations (Service 1980, pp. 1-4; 1987, p. 23; 1994, pp. 6, 74-75; 
71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006). Unsuitable habitat and small fragmented 
areas of suitable habitat away from these core recovery areas largely 
represent geographic locations where wolf breeding pairs are likely to 
persist only in low numbers, if at all. Although such areas may 
historically have contained suitable habitat (and may contribute to a 
healthy wolf population in the NRM DPS by facilitating dispersal 
between core areas), wolf packs in these areas are not important or 
necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving 
(Geffen et al. 2004, p. 2481) representative wolf population in the NRM 
DPS into the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    As detailed below, overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes has not been a significant threat 
to the NRM DPS. Mortality rates caused by commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes are not anticipated to exceed 
sustainable levels following delisting. These activities have not been 
a threat to the viability of the wolves in the past, and we have no 
reason to believe that they would become a threat to the viability of 
the wolves in the foreseeable future.
    Since their listing under the Act, no gray wolves have been 
deliberately and legally killed or removed from the wild in the NRM for 
commercial, recreational (hunting, trapping), or educational purposes. 
In the NRM, about 3 percent of the wolves captured for scientific 
research, nonlethal control, and monitoring have been accidentally 
killed (Bangs et al. in press). Some wolves may have been illegally 
killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, but we believe 
illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or wolf parts is rare. 
Illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes also is 
possible, but we have no evidence that it occurs in the NRM. We believe 
the prohibition against ``take'' provided for by Section 9 of the Act 
has discouraged and minimized the illegal killing of wolves for 
commercial or recreational purposes. Although Federal penalties under 
Section 11 of the Act will not apply once delisting is finalized, other 
Federal laws will still protect wildlife in National Parks and on other 
Federal lands (Service 1994, pp. 1:5-9). In addition, the States and 
Tribes have similar laws and regulations that protect game or trophy 
animals from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
and educational purposes (See Factor D for a more detailed discussion 
of this issue). We believe these laws will continue to provide a strong 
deterrent to illegal killing of wolves by the public, as they have been 
effective in State-led conservation programs for other resident 
wildlife such as black bears, mountain lions, elk, and deer. In 
addition, the State fish and game agencies, National Parks, other 
Federal agencies, and most Tribes have well-distributed experienced 
professional law enforcement officers to help enforce

[[Page 10542]]

State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife regulations (See Factor D).
    Scientific Research and Monitoring--From 1984 to 2007, the Service 
and our cooperating partners captured over 940 NRM wolves for 
monitoring, nonlethal control, and research purposes with 23 accidental 
deaths. With delisting of gray wolves in the NRM DPS, the States, 
National Parks, and Tribes will continue to capture and radio-collar 
wolves in the NRM DPS for monitoring and research purposes in 
accordance with their State wolf management plans (See ``Factor D'' and 
``Post-Delisting Monitoring'' sections). We expect that capture-caused 
mortality by Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, and universities 
conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and research will remain 
below 3 percent of the wolves captured, and will be an insignificant 
source of mortality to the wolf population.
    Education--We are unaware of any wolves that have been removed from 
the wild for solely educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that 
are used for such purposes are typically privately-held captive-reared 
offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons 
and are not protected by the Act. However, States may get requests to 
place wolves that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for 
research or educational purposes. Such requests have been, and will 
continue to be, rare; would be closely regulated by the State wildlife 
management agencies through the requirement for State permits for 
protected species; and would not substantially increase human-caused 
wolf mortality rates.
    Commercial and Recreational Uses--In Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, 
any legal take after delisting (primarily hunting and trapping) will be 
regulated by State or Tribal law so that such take would not threaten 
each State's share of the NRM DPS (See Factor D). The exception would 
be in Wyoming where there will be no regulation of wolf take in the 
area where wolves are designated as predatory animals. However, we have 
determined that the area of Wyoming where wolves are designated as 
predatory animals is outside of the GYA and is not important to 
maintaining recovery in the Wyoming portion of the NRM wolf population 
(See discussion in Boundaries of the DPS).
    Because wolves are highly territorial, wolf populations in 
saturated habitat naturally limit further population increases through 
wolf-to-wolf conflict or dispersal to unoccupied habitat. Wolf 
populations can maintain themselves despite sustained human-caused 
mortality rates of 30 to 50 percent per year (Keith 1983; Fuller et al. 
2003, pp. 182-184). In addition, human-caused mortality can take the 
place of up to 70 percent of wolf mortality that would have occurred 
naturally [e.g., wolf population/social pressures were relieved because 
a wolf was killed in a vehicle collision that would have otherwise been 
killed by other wolves] (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Wolf pups can be 
successfully raised by other pack members and breeding individuals can 
be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 1). 
Collectively, these factors mean that wolf populations are quite 
resilient to human-caused mortality if it can be regulated.
    Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will regulate human-caused mortality to 
manipulate wolf distribution and overall population size to help reduce 
conflicts with livestock and, in some cases, human hunting of big game, 
just as they do for other resident species of wildlife. Montana, Idaho, 
Wyoming, and some Tribes in those States will allow regulated public 
harvest of surplus wolves in the NRM DPS for commercial and 
recreational purposes by regulated private and guided hunting and 
trapping. Such take and any commercial use of wolf pelts or other parts 
will be regulated by State or Tribal law (see discussion of State laws 
and plans under Factor D). The regulated take of those wolves will not 
affect wolf population recovery or viability in the NRM DPS because 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will allow such take only for wolves that 
are surplus to achieving the State's commitment to maintaining a 
recovered population. Take of wolves in eastern and southern Wyoming 
will be unregulated. However, those areas of Wyoming and any wolves 
that may be present are not necessary to sustain a recovered wolf 
population in the NRM DPS because they would be so few, scattered, and 
temporary.
    State laws in Washington, Oregon, and Utah do not currently allow 
public take of wolves for recreational or commercial purposes. 
Regulated hunting and trapping are traditional and effective wildlife 
management tools that may be applied to help achieve State and Tribal 
wolf management objectives as needed and may be authorized at some 
point in the future. However, any wolf breeding pairs in those portions 
of the NRM DPS would not be necessary to sustain wolf population 
recovery in the NRM DPS and no threats, including high rates of human-
caused mortality, in these States would affect the wolf population in 
Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Wolf packs that formed outside the core 
recovery areas would be limited in number, scattered, temporary, 
experience high mortality rates, and consequently would not persist 
long enough to produce many dispersal-aged individuals. Wolves 
typically do not disperse from their natal pack until they are at least 
1.5 years old so these types of packs would produce very few dispersers 
that could supplement the wolf population in the core recovery areas.
    In summary, the States have organizations and regulatory and 
enforcement systems in place to limit human-caused mortality of wolves 
in all areas of the NRM DPS where regulated take will be important to 
maintaining the recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. 
The Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming State plans commit these States to 
regulate all take of wolves in their part of the NRM DPS. These plans 
include regulation of take for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
and educational purposes. The States will incorporate any Tribal 
harvest as part of the overall level of allowable take to ensure that 
the wolf population does not fall below the NRM DPS's numerical and 
distributional recovery levels (Idaho 2007, p. 16-17). The States and 
Tribes have humane and professional animal handling protocols and 
trained personnel that will ensure that population monitoring and 
research results in few unintentional mortalities. Furthermore, the 
States' permitting process for captive wildlife and animal care will 
ensure that few, if any, wolves will be removed from the wild solely 
for educational purposes (Idaho 2002, 2007; Montana 2003; Wyoming 
2007). We conclude that potential wolf take resulting from commercial, 
scientific, or educational purposes in the NRM DPS will be regulated so 
that it will not threaten wolf population recovery for the foreseeable 
future.

C. Disease or Predation

    As discussed in detail below, a wide range of diseases may affect 
wolves in the NRM DPS. However, no diseases or parasites, even in 
combination, are of such magnitude that the population is likely to 
become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Similarly, 
predation does not pose a significant threat to the NRM DPS. The rates 
of mortality caused by disease and predation are well within acceptable 
limits, and we do not expect those rates to change appreciably if the 
NRM DPS is delisted. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming State plans commit to 
monitoring wolf health to ensure any new impacts caused by diseases or 
parasites are quickly detected. Natural predation on wolves is rare, 
but predation by humans can be a significant issue if not regulated. 
More

[[Page 10543]]

information on disease and predation (including by humans) is provided 
below.
    Disease--Wolves in the NRM DPS are exposed to a wide variety of 
diseases and parasites that are common throughout North America. Many 
diseases (viruses and bacteria, many protozoa and fungi) and parasites 
(helminthes and arthropods) have been reported for the gray wolf, and 
several of them have had significant, but temporary impacts during wolf 
recovery in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 428; 
Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). The EIS on gray wolf reintroduction 
identified disease impact as an issue, but did not evaluate it further, 
as it appeared to be insignificant (Service 1994, pp. 1:20-21).
    Infectious disease induced by parasitic organisms is a normal 
factor in the life of wild animals, and the typical wild animal hosts a 
broad multi-species community of potentially harmful parasitic 
organisms (Wobeser 2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that these 
diseases and parasites will follow the same pattern seen in other areas 
of North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 428-429; Bailey et al. 1995, 
p. 445; Johnson 1995a, b; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-204; Atkinson 2006, pp. 
1-7; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-19) and will not significantly 
threaten wolf population viability. Nevertheless, because these 
diseases and parasites, and perhaps others, have the potential to 
impact wolf population distribution and demographics, careful 
monitoring (as per the State wolf management plans) will track such 
events (Atkinson 2006, pp. 1-7). Should such an outbreak occur, human-
caused mortality would be regulated by the States over an appropriate 
area and time period to ensure wolf population numbers in the NRM DPS 
are maintained above recovery levels in those portions of the NRM DPS.
    Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 
familiaris), foxes, coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and raccoons 
(Procyon lotor). The population impacts of CPV occur via diarrhea-
induced dehydration leading to abnormally high pup mortality (Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical CPV is 
characterized by severe hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting; debility and 
subsequent mortality is a result of dehydration, electrolyte 
imbalances, and shock. The CPV has been detected in nearly every wolf 
population in North America including Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 
441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211; Johnson et 
al. 1994), and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost universal. 
Currently, nearly 100 percent of the wolves handled by Montana Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) (Atkinson 2006) and YNP (Smith and Almberg 
2007, p. 18) had blood antibodies indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. 
The CPV contributed to low pup survival in the northern range of YNP in 
1999, and was suspected to have done so again in 2005 (Smith et al. 
2006, p. 244). However, monitoring data show 2006 and 2007 pup 
production and survival in YNP returned to normal levels (Smith and 
Almberg 2007, pp. 18-19). The impact of such disease outbreaks to the 
overall NRM DPS of the gray wolf has been localized and temporary, as 
has been documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 
1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211).
    Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, fever-causing disease of 
carnivores caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). It is common in 
domestic dogs and some wild canids, such as coyotes and foxes in the 
NRM (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). The prevalence of antibodies to this 
disease in samples of wolf blood in North American wolves is about 17 
percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). Nearly 85 percent of Montana wolf blood 
samples analyzed in 2005 indicated nonlethal exposure to CD (Atkinson 
2006). Similar results were found in YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 
18). Mortality in wolves has been documented in Canada (Carbyn 1982, p. 
109), Alaska (Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441), 
and in a single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). 
Canine distemper is not a major mortality factor in wolves, despite 
high exposure to the virus, because affected wolf populations 
demonstrate good recruitment (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-421). 
Mortality from CD has been confirmed only once in gray wolves of the 
NRM DPS despite their high exposure to it, but we suspect it 
contributed to the high pup mortality documented in the northern GYA in 
spring 2005.
    Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete bacterium, is spread primarily 
by deer ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species include humans, horses 
(Equus caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, white-footed 
mice (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus), 
coyotes, and wolves. In WGL populations, it does not appear to cause 
adult mortality, but might be suppressing population growth by 
decreasing wolf pup survival (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
1999, p. 61). Lyme disease has not been reported from wolves beyond the 
Great Lakes region (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 
61).
    Mange is caused by a mite (Sarcoptes scabeii) that infests the 
skin. The irritation caused by feeding and burrowing mites results in 
intense itching, resulting in scratching and severe fur loss, which can 
lead to mortality from exposure during winter weather or secondary 
infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Advanced mange can involve the 
entire body and can cause emaciation, decreased wariness, staggering, 
and death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a long-term Alberta wolf study, 
higher wolf densities were correlated with increased incidence of 
mange, and pup survival decreased as the incidence of mange increased 
(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427-428). Mange has been shown to temporarily 
affect wolf population growth rates and perhaps wolf distribution 
(Kreeger 2003, p. 208).
    Mange has been detected in, and caused mortality to, wolves in the 
NRM DPS, but almost exclusively in the GYA, and primarily east of the 
Continental Divide (Jimenez et al. 2007a; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith 
and Almberg 2007, p. 19). Those wolves likely contracted mange from 
coyotes or fox whose populations experience occasional outbreaks. In 
Montana, 3 percent of 38 packs in 2003, 10 percent of 40 packs in 2004, 
24 percent of 46 packs in 2005, 10 percent of 60 packs in 2006, and 4 
percent of 71 packs in 2007 showed evidence of mange, although not all 
members of every pack appeared infested. In Wyoming, including YNP, 
mange affected 5 percent of 22 packs in 2002, 8 percent of 26 packs in 
2003, 12 percent of 26 packs in 2004, 3 percent of 29 packs in 2005, 9 
percent of 40 packs in 2006, and 15 percent of 33 packs in 2007. Mange 
has not been confirmed in wolves in Idaho (Jimenez et al. 2007a).
    In packs with the most severe infestations, pup survival appeared 
low, and some adults died (Jimenez et al. 2007a). In addition, we 
euthanized approximately 4 wolves with severe mange for humane reasons 
and because of their abnormal behavior. We predict that mange in the 
NRM DPS will act as it has in other parts of North America (Brand et 
al. 1995, pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208) and not threaten wolf 
population viability. Evidence suggests that wolves in the NRM DPS will 
not be infested on a chronic population-wide level given the recent 
response of wolves that naturally overcame a mange infestation (Jimenez 
et al. 2007a).

[[Page 10544]]

    Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) commonly feed on domestic 
dogs, but can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz et al. 1983, p. 372; 
Mech et al. 1985, p. 404). The lice can attain severe infestations, 
particularly in pups. The worst infestations can result in severe 
scratching, irritated and raw skin, substantial hair loss particularly 
in the groin, and poor condition. While no wolf mortality has been 
confirmed, death from exposure and/or secondary infection following 
self-inflicted trauma, caused by inflammation and itching, appears 
possible. Dog-biting lice were first confirmed in wolves in the NRM DPS 
on two pups in the Battlefield pack in the Big Hole Valley of 
southwestern Montana in 2005. In 2006, 3 pups the Battlefield pack were 
infested. In 2006 and 2007 lice were documented on 9 wolves from 8 
packs in south-central Idaho. None of these infestations were severe 
(Service et al. 2006, p. 15; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 
2007b). Based on epizootics of lice infestations reported in other 
areas in North America, lice may contribute to higher morbidity in 
individual wolves, but will not be a significant cause of mortality 
that would threaten the regional wolf population (Kreeger 2003, p. 
208). The source of the lice infestation is unknown, but was likely 
domestic dogs.
    Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitus), blastomycosis, 
brucellosis, neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, canine 
coronavirus, viral papillomatosis, hookworm, tapeworm, coccidiosis, and 
canine adenovirus/hepatitis have all been documented in wild gray 
wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not 
likely to be significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419-429; Johnson 
1995a, pp. 5-73, 1995b, pp. 5-49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, 
pp. 202-214; Atkinson 2006, p. 1-7). Canid rabies caused local 
population declines in Alaska (Ballard and Krausman 1997, p. 242) and 
may temporarily limit population growth or distribution where another 
species, such as arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus), act as a reservoir for 
the disease. Range expansion could provide new avenues for exposure to 
several of these diseases, especially canine heartworm, rabies, bovine 
tuberculosis, and possibly new diseases such as chronic wasting disease 
and West Nile virus, further emphasizing the need for vigilant disease 
monitoring programs.
    Because several of the diseases and parasites are known to be 
spread by wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence may increase if wolf 
densities increase. However, because wolf densities are already high 
(Service et al. 2007, Table 1 & Figure 1), wolf-to-wolf contacts will 
not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease prevalence. The 
wolves' exposure to these types of organisms may be most common outside 
of the core population areas, where domestic dogs are most common, and 
lowest in the core population areas because wolves tend to flow out of, 
not into, saturated habitats. Despite this dynamic, we assume that most 
wolves in the NRM DPS will continue to have exposure to most diseases 
and parasites in the system. Diseases or parasites have not been a 
significant threat to wolf population recovery in the NRM DPS to date, 
and we have no reason to believe that they will become a significant 
threat to their viability in the foreseeable future.
    In terms of future monitoring, each State has committed to monitor 
the gray wolf NRM DPS for significant disease and parasite problems 
(Atkinson 2006, p. 1; Idaho 2007, pp. 36-7; Wyoming 2007, p. 7, 39). 
These State wildlife health programs often cooperate with Federal 
agencies and universities and usually have both reactive and proactive 
wildlife health monitoring protocols. Reactive strategies consist of 
periodic intensive investigations after disease or parasite problems 
have been detected through routine management practices, such as pelt 
examination, reports from hunters, research projects, or population 
monitoring. Proactive strategies often involve ongoing routine 
investigation of wildlife health information through collection and 
analysis of blood and tissue samples from all or a sub-sample of 
wildlife carcasses or live animals that are handled. We do not believe 
that diseases or changes in disease monitoring by the States or Tribes 
will threaten wolf population recovery in the NRM DPS.
    Natural Predation--No wild animals routinely prey on gray wolves 
(Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 259-260). Occasionally wolves have been 
killed by large prey such as elk, deer, bison, and moose (Mech and 
Nelson 1989, p. 207; Mech and Peterson 2003, p. 134; Smith et al. 2006, 
p. 247), but those instances are few. Since the 1980s, we know of 
wolves in the NRM have died from wounds they received while attacking 
prey on about a dozen occasions (Smith et al. 2006, p. 247). That level 
of mortality could not significantly affect wolf population viability 
or stability.
    Since wolves in the NRM DPS have been monitored, only three wolves 
have been confirmed killed by other large predators. Two adults were 
killed by mountain lions, and one pup was killed by a grizzly bear 
(Jimenez et al. 2006). Wolves in the NRM DPS inhabit the same areas as 
mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears, but conflicts rarely 
result in the death of either species. Wolves evolved with other large 
predators, and no other large predators in North America, except 
humans, have the potential to significantly impact wolf populations.
    Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation among 
wolves. Numerous mortalities have resulted from territorial conflicts 
between wolves, and about 7 percent of wolf deaths are caused by 
territorial conflict in the NRM gray wolf DPS (Smith 2007a). Wherever 
wolf packs occur, including the NRM, some low level of wolf mortality 
will result from territorial conflict. Wolf populations tend to 
regulate their own density; consequently, territorial conflict is 
highest in saturated habitats. That cause of mortality is infrequent 
and does not result in a level of mortality that would significantly 
affect a wolf population's viability in the NRM (Smith 2007a).
    Human-caused Predation--Wolves are susceptible to human-caused 
mortality, especially in open habitats such as those that occur in the 
western U.S. (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). An active eradication program 
is the sole reason that wolves were extirpated from the NRM (Weaver 
1978, p. i). Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In all 
locations where people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are 
killed to resolve conflicts with livestock (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 
Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-7). Occasionally, wolf killings 
are accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes 
and shot, or caught in traps set for other animals) (Bangs et al. 2005, 
p. 346), and some are reported to State, Tribal, and Federal 
authorities.
    However, many wolf killings are intentional, illegal, and are never 
reported to authorities. Wolves may become unwary of people or human 
activity, and that can make them vulnerable to human-caused mortality 
(Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 300-302). In the NRM DPS, mountain 
topography concentrates both wolf and human activity in valley bottoms 
(Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1105), especially in winter, which 
increases wolf exposure to human-caused mortality. The number of 
illegal killings is difficult to estimate and impossible to accurately 
determine because they generally occur in areas with few witnesses. 
Often the evidence has decayed by the time the wolf's carcass is 
discovered or the evidence is destroyed or concealed by the 
perpetrators. While human-caused

[[Page 10545]]

mortality, including illegal killing, has not prevented population 
recovery, it has affected NRM wolf distribution (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 
93). In the past 20 years and despite repeated dispersal of lone wolves 
into such areas, no wolf packs have successfully established and 
persisted solely in open prairie or high desert habitats that are used 
for intensive agriculture production (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; 
Service et al. 1989-2007, Figure 1).
    As part of the interagency wolf monitoring program and various 
research projects, about 30 percent of the wolves in the NRM DPS have 
been monitored with radio telemetry since the 1980s (Smith 2007a). The 
annual survival rate of mature wolves in northwestern Montana and 
adjacent Canada from 1984 through 1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher et al. 
1997, p. 459); 84 percent for resident wolves and 66 percent for 
dispersers. That study found 84 percent of wolf mortality to be human-
caused. Bangs et al. (1998, p. 790) found similar statistics, with 
humans causing most of the wolf mortality in the NRM DPS. Radio-
collared wolves in the largest blocks of remote habitat without 
livestock, such as central Idaho or YNP, had annual survival rates 
around 80 percent (Smith et al., 2006 p. 245). Wolves outside of large 
remote areas had survival rates as low as 54 percent in some years 
(Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). This percentage is at the lower end of 
adult wolf survival rates that an isolated population can sustain 
(Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185).
    These survival rates may be biased. Wolves are more likely to be 
radio-collared if they are likely to come into conflict with people, so 
the proportion of mortality caused by agency depredation control 
actions could be overestimated by radio-telemetry data. People who 
illegally kill wolves may destroy the radio-collar, so the proportion 
of illegal mortality could be underestimated. Wolves that disperse long 
distances are much more difficult to locate than resident wolves, so 
their survival may be even lower than telemetry data indicate. The high 
proportion of wolves radio-collared in National Parks for research 
purposes can result in underestimating the overall rate of human-caused 
mortality in the NRM DPS. However, wolf numbers have increased at rate 
of about 24% annually in the face of ongoing levels of human-caused 
mortality.
    A preliminary analysis of the survival data among NRM DPS radio-
collared wolves (n=940) (Hensey & Fuller 1983; Smith 2007a) from 1984 
through 2006 indicates that about 26 percent of adult-sized wolves die 
every year, so annual adult survival averages about 74 percent, which 
typically allows wolf population growth (Keith 1983, p. 66; Fuller et 
al. 2003, p. 182). Humans caused just over 75 percent of all known 
radio-collared wolf deaths (Smith 2007a). This type of analysis does 
not estimate the cause or rate of survival among pups younger than 7 
months of age, because they are too small to radio-collar. Agency 
control of problem wolves and illegal killing are the two largest 
causes of wolf death; combined these causes remove nearly 20 percent of 
the population annually and are responsible for a majority of all known 
wolf deaths (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245).
    Wolf mortality from agency control of problem wolves (which 
includes legal take by private individuals under defense of property 
regulations in rules promulgated under section 10(j) of the Act) is 
estimated to remove around 10 percent of adult radio-collared wolves 
annually. From 1995 through 2007, 60 wolves were legally killed by 
private citizens under Federal defense of property regulations (50 CFR 
17.84(i) and (n)) that are similar to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming State 
laws for resident game animals that would take effect and direct take 
of problem wolves by both the public and agencies if wolves were 
delisted. Agency control removed over 672 problem wolves from 1987 
through 2007 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4; Service 2007a), indicating 
that private citizen take (about 8 percent) under State defense of 
property laws would not significantly increase the overall rate of 
problem wolf removal (Bangs et al. in press, pp. 19-20).
    Of radio-collared wolves that died from 1984-2005, 21% were killed 
by natural causes (including 7% wolf-to-wolf conflict), 15% died from 
human-caused mortality other than agency control (vehicles, capture-
related, incidental trapping, accidents, and legal harvest of wolves 
that range into Canada), 28% were killed in control actions, 21% were 
illegally killed, and for 15% the cause of death was unknown (Smith 
2007a).
    A comparison of the overall wolf population and the number of 
problem wolves killed indicates agency control removes, on average, 
about 9 percent of the overall wolf population annually (Service et al. 
2007, Table 5). Wolf mortality under State and Tribal defense of 
property regulations that is incidental to other legal activities, 
agency control of problem wolves, and legal hunting and trapping will 
be regulated by Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and Tribes when the Act's 
protections are removed. This issue is discussed further below under 
Factor D.
    The overall causes and rates of annual wolf mortality are affected 
by several variables. Wolves in higher quality suitable habitat, such 
as remote, forested areas with few livestock (like National Parks or 
central Idaho wilderness), have high survival rates (80%). Wolves in 
unsuitable habitat or in suitable habitat without substantial refugia 
have survival rates approaching 60% (Smith 2007a). Mortality rates also 
vary depending on whether the wolves are resident pack members or 
dispersers, if they have a history with livestock depredation, or have 
been relocated (Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1506). However, the overall 
rate of wolf mortality has been low enough since 1987 that the wolf 
population in the NRM DPS has steadily increased. The wolf population 
is now nearly three times as numerous as needed to meet minimum 
recovery levels and is distributed throughout most suitable habitat 
within the NRM DPS (Service 1987, p. 23; Service 1994, p. 1:6).
    When the NRM DPS of the gray wolf is delisted, State management 
will likely increase the mortality rate outside National Parks and 
National Wildlife Refuges from its current level of about 26 percent 
annually (Smith 2007a). Wolf mortality, as high as 50 percent annually, 
may be sustainable under some conditions (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185). 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have the regulatory authorization and 
commitment to regulate human[pi]caused mortality so that the wolf 
population remains above its numerical and distributional recovery 
goals. This issue is discussed further below under Factor D.
    In summary, human-caused mortality to adult radio-collared wolves 
in the NRM DPS, averaging over 20 percent per year (Smith 2007a), still 
allows for rapid wolf population growth. The protection of wolves under 
the Act promoted rapid initial wolf population growth in suitable 
habitat. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed to continue to 
regulate human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce numbers of 
wolves in the NRM DPS below recovery levels. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 
Oregon, Washington, and Utah have adequate laws and regulations to 
ensure that the NRM DPS remains above recovery levels (see Factor D). 
Each post-delisting management entity (State, Tribal, and Federal) has 
experienced and professional wildlife staff to ensure those commitments 
can be accomplished.

[[Page 10546]]

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    To address this factor, we compare the current regulatory 
mechanisms within the NRM DPS to the future mechanisms that would 
provide the framework for wolf management after delisting. These 
regulatory mechanisms are and will be implemented by the State 
governments included in the NRM DPS. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming's wolf 
management programs are designed to maintain a recovered wolf 
population while minimizing the damage it causes by allowing for 
removal of wolves in areas of chronic conflict or in unsuitable 
habitat. The three States with habitat occupied by persistent wolf 
packs have adopted wolf management plans that will govern how wolves 
will be managed when delisted. As discussed below, we have determined 
that Montana's, Idaho's, and Wyoming's plans will provide adequate 
regulatory mechanisms because these States have management plans that 
would maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State by 
managing for a safety margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 
150 wolves in each State.
    While it is unknown at this time what levels the wolf population 
would ultimately achieve, other than above the minimum management 
objectives, Montana's plan states ``approximately 328-657 wolves (or 
27-54 breeding pairs) would be present in Montana in 2015'' (Montana 
2003, p. 132); Idaho intends to manage well above 20 breeding pairs to 
maintain opportunities for regulated public hunting of wolves only 
above that level, and <=2003 levels of livestock and big game conflict 
(in 2003 there were 345 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in Idaho) (Idaho 
2007, pp. 16, 20-21; Idaho 2007 pp. 20-21; Service et al. 2007, Table 
4); and Wyoming has committed to manage for 7 breeding pairs outside 
the National Parks (historically representing 70-98 wolves) in addition 
to those in YNP (since 2000 YNP annually averaged 140 wolves in 10 
breeding pairs) that could result in Wyoming, including those in YNP, 
maintaining at least 210-238 wolves and 17 breeding pairs (Wyoming 
2007, p. 1; Service et al. 2000-2007, Table 2). Based on these State 
projections, the entire NRM wolf population will likely be managed 
around 883-1240 wolves in 69-96 breeding pairs, roughly two to four 
times higher than minimum recovery levels but slightly below the 2007 
estimate of around 1,500 wolves (Service 2007a). Any wolf conservation 
by the Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be 
beneficial, but is not necessary to either achieving or maintaining a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS.
    Current Wolf Management--The 1980 and 1987 NRM wolf recovery plans 
(Service 1980, p. 4; 1987, p. 3) recognized that conflict with 
livestock was the major reason that wolves were extirpated and that 
management of conflicts was a necessary component of wolf restoration. 
The plans also recognized that control of problem wolves was necessary 
to maintain local public tolerance of wolves and that removal of some 
wolves would not prevent the wolf population from achieving recovery. 
In 1988, the Service developed an interim wolf control plan that 
applied to Montana and Wyoming (Service 1988, p. 1); the plan was 
amended in 1990 to include Idaho and eastern Washington (Service 1990, 
p. 1). We analyzed the effectiveness of those plans in 1999, and 
revised our guidelines for management of problem wolves listed as 
endangered (Service 1999, p. 1). Evidence showed that most wolves do 
not attack livestock, especially larger livestock such as adult horses 
and cattle, but wolf presence around livestock will result in some 
level of depredation (Bangs and Shivik 2001; Bangs et al. 2005, pp. 
348-350). Therefore, we developed a set of guidelines under which 
depredating wolves could be harassed, moved, or killed by agency 
officials (Service 1999, pp. 39-40). The control plans were based on 
the premise that agency wolf control actions would affect only a small 
number of wolves, but would sustain public tolerance for non-
depredating wolves, thus enhancing the chances for successful 
population recovery (Mech 1995, pp. 276-276). Our assumptions have 
proven correct, as wolf depredation on livestock and subsequent agency 
control actions have remained at low levels (annually averaging about 
64 cattle, 135 sheep, 8 dogs, and 3 other forms of livestock from 1995-
2006) (Service et al. 2007, Table 5), and the wolf population has 
expanded its distribution and numbers far beyond, and more quickly 
than, earlier predictions (Service 1994, p. 2:12; Service et al. 2007, 
Table 4).
    The conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the 
average annual removal of 8-10 percent of the wolf population (Bangs et 
al. 1995, p. 130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. 2005, pp. 342-
344; Service et al. 2007, Tables 4, 5; Smith 2007a). We estimate that 
each year illegal killing removed another 10 percent of the wolf 
population, and accidental and unintentional human-caused deaths have 
removed another 3 percent (Smith 2007a). Even with this level of 
mortality, populations have expanded rapidly (Service et al. 2007, 
Table 5). Despite liberal regulations regarding wolf removal, all 
suitable areas for wolves are being occupied by resident packs (Service 
et al. 2007, Figure 1). Wolf pack distribution has remained largely 
unchanged since the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001-2007, Figure 1), 
indicating that wolf packs are simply filling the areas with suitable 
habitat, not successfully expanding their range into unsuitable 
habitat.
    Because wolf populations continually try to expand, wolves will 
increasingly disperse into unsuitable areas that are intensively used 
for livestock production. A higher percentage of wolves in those areas 
will result in wolf conflicts with livestock, and a larger number of 
those wolves will be removed to reduce future livestock damage. In 2006 
about 12 percent of the NRM wolf population was removed because of 
conflicts with livestock but the population still increased over 20 
percent. In 2007 the rate of removal was even higher and the wolf 
population still increased by nearly 20 percent (Service 2007a). Human-
caused mortality would have to remove 34 to as much as 50 percent of 
the wolf population annually before population growth would cease 
(Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184-185). Preliminary wolf survival data from 
radio-telemetry studies suggests that adult wolf mortality resulting 
from conflict with people could nearly be doubled beyond the current 23 
percent annual rate and still not significantly impact wolf population 
recovery (Smith 2007a). Wolf populations are quite resilient to human-
caused mortality, and compensate for it in part by lower rates of 
natural mortality and lower dispersal rates. In addition, wolf packs 
quickly adapt to social vacancies by replacing breeders or adopting 
orphaned pups, thus maintaining breeding pairs. The State management 
laws and plans intend to balance the level of wolf mortality by 
regulating human-caused mortality with the wolf population growth rate 
to achieve population objectives in each State.
    Regulatory Assurances Within the NRM DPS--In 1999, the Governors of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming agreed that regional coordination in wolf 
management planning among the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions 
would be necessary to ensure timely delisting. They signed a Memorandum 
of Understanding to facilitate cooperation among the three States in 
developing adequate State wolf management plans

[[Page 10547]]

so that delisting could proceed. In this agreement, all three States 
committed to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per 
State. The States were to develop their pack definitions to approximate 
the current breeding pair definition. Governors from the three States 
renewed that agreement in April 2002.
    The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical and 
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000. The temporal portion 
of the recovery goal (maintaining numerical and distributional recovery 
goals for 3 consecutive years) was achieved at the end of 2002. Because 
the primary threat to the wolf population (human-caused mortality) 
still has the potential to significantly impact wolf populations if not 
adequately managed, under the Act there must be regulatory assurances 
that the States will manage for sustainable mortality levels before we 
can remove the Act's protections. Therefore, we requested that the 
States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming prepare State wolf management 
plans to demonstrate how they would manage wolves after the protections 
of the Act were removed. Wolf management by the Tribes and the States 
of Washington, Oregon, and Utah might result in a few wolf breeding 
pairs, but they would not be necessary to either achieving or 
maintaining a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS, because habitat 
in those areas is limited and often distant from the core recovery 
areas. Likewise, no threats in those States or on Tribal lands could be 
significant enough to affect wolf population recovery in Montana, 
Idaho, or Wyoming. The Service provided varying degrees of funding and 
assistance to the States while they developed their wolf management 
plans. Several issues key to our approval of State plans include 
regulations that would provide for regulatory control of take, a pack 
definition biologically consistent with the Service's definition of a 
breeding pair, the ability to realistically manage State wolf 
populations, agency monitoring of the wolf population and any impacts 
to it, and the number of breeding pairs and wolves the States agree to 
manage for above minimum recovery levels.
    The final Service determination of the adequacy of those three key 
State management plans was based on the combination of Service 
knowledge of State law, the State management plans, wolf biology, our 
experience managing wolves for the last 20 years, peer review of the 
State plans, and the State's response to peer review. Those State plans 
can be viewed at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/.
    After our analysis of the State laws, the State plans, and other 
factors, the Service determined that State laws and wolf management 
plans were adequate to assure the Service that each State's share of 
the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels 
following delisting. Therefore, we determined those regulatory 
mechanisms met the requirements of the Act. State and Tribal wolf 
management plans in the NRM DPS are discussed below.
    Montana--The gray wolf was listed under the Montana Nongame and 
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973 (87-5-101 MCA). Senate Bill 
163, passed by the Montana Legislature and signed into law by the 
Governor in 2001, establishes the current legal status for wolves in 
Montana. Upon Federal delisting, wolves will be classified and 
protected under Montana law as a ``Species in Need of Management'' (87-
5-101 to 87-5-123). Such species are primarily managed through 
regulation of all forms of human-caused mortality in a manner similar 
to trophy game animals like mountain lions and black bears. The MFWP 
and the Commission would then finalize more detailed administrative 
rules, as is typically done for other resident wildlife, but they must 
be consistent with the Service-approved Montana wolf management plan 
and State law. Classification as a ``Species in Need of Management'' 
and the associated administrative rules under Montana State law create 
the legal mechanism to protect wolves and regulate human-caused 
mortality beyond the immediate defense of life/property situations. 
Some illegal human-caused mortality would still occur, but is to be 
prosecuted under State law and Commission regulations.
    In 2001, the Governor of Montana appointed the Montana Wolf 
Management Advisory Council to advise MFWP regarding wolf management 
after the species is removed from the lists of Federal and State-
protected species. In August 2003, MFWP completed a Final EIS pursuant 
to the Montana Environmental Policy Act and recommended that the 
Updated Advisory Council alternative be selected as Montana's Final 
Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Montana 2003, p. 131). See 
http://www.fwp.State.mt.us to view the MFWP Final EIS and the Montana 
Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
    Under the management plan, the wolf population will be maintained 
above the recovery level of 10 breeding pairs by managing for a safety 
margin of at least 15 breeding pairs. MFWP will manage problem wolves 
in a manner similar to the control program currently being implemented 
in the experimental population area in southern Montana, whereby 
landowners and livestock producers on public land can shoot wolves seen 
attacking livestock or dogs, and agency control of problem wolves is 
incremental and in response to confirmed depredations. State management 
of conflicts would become more protective of wolves, and no public 
hunting would be allowed if there are fewer than 15 packs. Wolves will 
not be deliberately confined to any specific areas of Montana, but 
their distribution and numbers will be managed adaptively based on 
ecological factors, wolf population status, conflict mitigation, and 
human social tolerance. The MFWP plan commits to implement its 
management framework in a manner that encourages connectivity among 
wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, GYA, and Montana to maintain the 
overall metapopulation structure. Wolf management will include 
population monitoring, routine analysis of population health, 
management in concert with prey populations, law enforcement, control 
of domestic animal/human conflicts, consideration of a wolf-damage 
compensation program, research, and information and public outreach. 
Montana's plan (Montana 2003, p. 132) predicts that under State 
management, the wolf population will increase to between 328 and 657 
wolves with approximately 27 to 54 breeding pairs by 2015.
    An important ecological factor determining wolf distribution in 
Montana is the availability and distribution of wild ungulates. Montana 
has a rich, diverse, and widely distributed prey base on both public 
and private lands. The MFWP has and will continue to manage wild 
ungulates according to Commission-approved policy direction and species 
management plans. The plans typically describe a management philosophy 
that protects the long-term sustainability of the ungulate populations, 
allows recreational hunting of surplus game, and aims to keep the 
population within management objectives based on ecological and social 
considerations. The MFWP takes a proactive approach to integrate 
management of ungulates and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is to be 
balanced with maintaining sufficient prey populations to sustain 
Montana's segment of a recovered wolf population. Ongoing efforts to 
monitor populations of both ungulates and wolves will

[[Page 10548]]

provide credible, scientific information for wildlife management 
decisions.
    State regulations will allow agency management of problem wolves by 
MFWP and USDA-Wildlife Services (WS); take by private citizens in 
defense of private property; and, when the population is above 15 
packs, regulated hunting of wolves. Montana wildlife regulations 
allowing take in defense of private property are similar to the 2005 
experimental population regulations, whereby landowners and livestock 
grazing permittees can shoot wolves seen attacking or molesting 
livestock or pets as long as such incidents are reported promptly and 
subsequent investigations confirm that livestock were being attacked by 
wolves. The MFWP has enlisted and directed USDA-WS in problem wolf 
management, just as the Service has done since 1987.
    When the Service reviewed and determined that the Montana wolf 
management plan met the requirements of the Act, we stated that 
Montana's wolf management plan would maintain a recovered wolf 
population and minimize conflicts with other traditional activities in 
Montana's landscape. The Service has every confidence that Montana will 
implement the commitments it has made in its current laws, regulations, 
and wolf plan. In June 2005, MFWP signed a Cooperative Agreement with 
the Service, and it now manages all wolves in Montana subject to 
general oversight by the Service. The State's oversight has proven to 
be successful, as Montana's wolf population estimate increased from 152 
wolves in 15 breeding pairs in late 2004 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4) 
to about 394 wolves in 37 breeding pairs in 2007 (Service 2007a) since 
the 2005 agreement.
    Idaho--The Idaho Fish and Game Commission (Idaho Commission) has 
authority to classify wildlife under Idaho Code 36-104(b) and 36-201. 
The gray wolf was classified as endangered by the State until March 
2005, when the Idaho Commission reclassified the species as a big game 
animal under Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (13.01.06.100.01.d). 
The big game classification will take effect upon Federal delisting, 
and until then, wolves will be managed under Federal status. Wolves are 
a big game animal, and State regulations will adjust human-caused wolf 
mortality to ensure that recovery levels are exceeded. Title 36 of the 
Idaho statutes currently has penalties associated with illegal take of 
big game animals. These rules are consistent with the legislatively 
adopted Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (IWCMP) (Idaho 
2002) and big game hunting restrictions currently in place. The IWCMP 
states that wolves will be protected against illegal take as a big game 
animal under Idaho Code 36-1402, 36-1404, and 36-202(h).
    The IWCMP was written with the assistance and leadership of the 
Wolf Oversight Committee established in 1992 by the Idaho Legislature. 
Many special interest groups, including legislators, sportsmen, 
livestock producers, conservationists, and IDFG personnel, were 
involved in the development of the IWCMP. The Service provided 
technical advice to the Committee and reviewed numerous drafts before 
the IWCMP was finalized. In March 2002, the IWCMP was adopted by joint 
resolution of the Idaho Legislature. The IWCMP can be found at: http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf.
    The IWCMP calls for IDFG to be the primary manager of wolves after 
delisting; to maintain a minimum of 15 packs of wolves as a substantial 
margin of safety over the 10 breeding pair minimum; and to manage them 
as a viable self-sustaining population that will never require 
relisting under the Act. Wolf take will be more liberal if there are 
more than 15 packs and more conservative if there are fewer than 15 
packs in Idaho. The wolf population will be managed by defense of 
property regulations similar to those now in effect under the Act. 
Public harvest will be incorporated as a management tool when there are 
15 or more packs in Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with livestock 
producers or big game populations that outfitters, guides, and others 
hunt. The IWCMP allows IDFG to classify the wolf as a big game animal 
or furbearer, or to assign a special classification of predator, so 
that human-caused mortality can be regulated. In March 2005, the Idaho 
Commission proposed that, upon delisting, the wolf would be classified 
as a big game animal with the intent of managing wolves similar to 
black bears and mountain lions, including the opportunity for regulated 
public hunting when populations are above 15 packs. The IWCMP calls for 
the State to coordinate with USDA-WS to manage depredating wolves 
depending on the number of wolves in the State. It also calls for a 
balanced educational effort.
    In November 2007, Idaho released its Wolf Population Management 
Plan for public review and comment (Otter 2007, p. 1; Idaho 2007). That 
plan is a more detailed step-down management plan compared to the 
general guidance given in the plan Idaho adopted in 2002 and discusses 
how the population will likely be managed well above 20 breeding pairs 
to provide hunting opportunities for wolves surplus to that goal (Idaho 
2007, p. 16). The 2007 plan details how wolf populations will be 
managed to assure their niche in Idaho's wild places into the future 
(Otter 2007). It should be finalized in March 2008.
    Elk and deer populations are managed to meet biological and social 
objectives for each herd unit according to the State's species 
management plans. The IDFG will manage both ungulates and carnivores, 
including wolves, to maintain viable populations of each. Ungulate 
harvest would be focused on maintaining sufficient prey populations to 
sustain viable wolf and other carnivore populations and hunting. IDFG 
has conducted research to better understand the impacts of wolves and 
their relationships to ungulate population sizes and distribution so 
that regulated take of wolves can be used to assist in management of 
ungulate populations and vice versa.
    The Mule Deer Initiative in southeast Idaho was implemented by IDFG 
in 2005, to restore and improve mule deer populations. Though most of 
the initiative lies outside current wolf range and suitable wolf 
habitat in Idaho, improving ungulate populations and hunter success 
will decrease negative attitudes toward wolves. When mule deer 
increase, some wolves may move into the areas that are being 
highlighted under the initiative. Habitat improvements within much of 
southeast Idaho would focus on improving mule deer conditions. The 
Clearwater Elk Initiative also is an attempt to improve elk numbers in 
the area of the Clearwater Region in north Idaho where currently IDFG 
has concerns about the health of that once-abundant elk herd (Idaho 
2006).
    As stated previously, in March 2005 the gray wolf was reclassified 
by the Idaho Commission as a big game animal and this classification 
will take effect upon Federal delisting. Human-caused mortality will be 
regulated as directed by the IWCMP to maintain a recovered wolf 
population. The Service has every confidence that Idaho will implement 
the commitments it has made in its current laws, regulations, and wolf 
plan. In January 2006, the Governor of Idaho signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Secretary of the Interior that provided the IDFG 
the authority to manage all Idaho wolves while they remain listed. The 
State's oversight has proven to be successful. Since the 2006 
agreement, Idaho's wolf population estimate increased from 512 wolves 
in 36 breeding pairs in late 2005 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4) to 
about

[[Page 10549]]

788 wolves in 41 breeding pairs in 2007 (Service 2007a.)
    Wyoming--In 2007, the Wyoming legislature passed a State statute 
that would permit designation of wolves as ``trophy game'' in an area 
totaling just over 12,000 square miles in northwestern Wyoming, 
including YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial 
Parkway, adjacent USFS-designated Wilderness Areas, and adjacent public 
and private lands, once the wolf is delisted from the Act. Following 
the change in State law, Wyoming drafted a revised wolf management plan 
(Wyoming 2007). On November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 
2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). The Service has determined 
that this plan, if implemented, will provide adequate regulatory 
protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovery wolf population 
into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1-3). The plan automatically 
goes into effect upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming 
Secretary of State that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming 
wolf management law have been met (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 1-3). Thus, 
our determination is conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 
law being fully in effect within 20 days of publication of this rule 
and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming 
statutes (Hall 2007).
    Implementation of that law and the trophy game area of northwestern 
Wyoming is premised on Wyoming's Governor certifying to the Wyoming 
Secretary of State that (1) the Service published a delisting rule that 
includes the entire State of Wyoming prior to February 28, 2007; (2) 
the Service modified the 2005 special rule [(10(j)] for the 
experimental population that addressed Wyoming's concerns about wolf 
management to maintain ungulate herds above State management 
objectives; and (3) settlement or resolution of the claims relating to 
the Service not approving Wyoming's 2003 wolf management law and wolf 
plan. This action satisfies the first criterion above. The second 
criterion was satisfied on January 29, 2008 when the Wyoming Governor 
certified that the 10(j) rule modification satisfied Wyoming's law 
(Freudenthal 2008). Wyoming has indicated that they will deem the 
claims in the pending litigation settled and will request that the 
court dismiss the litigation upon publication of this final rule by 
February 28, 2008 (Freudenthal 2007b). Dismissal of the case is not 
needed for the 2007 wolf management plan and law to become effective 
(Freudenthal 2007b). Additionally, on November 19, 2007, the Governor 
certified that the provisions in the Wyoming wolf management law, Sec.  
11-6-302(b) and 23-1-101(b), relating to the trophy game area boundary 
had been changed. We anticipate final certification will be issued 
within 20 days of publication of this rule.
    If the provisions in the Wyoming wolf law are not fulfilled and the 
final certifications are not made within 20 days of publication of this 
rule, we will withdraw this final rule before its effective date. In 
that case, the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan will be 
the regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming. As previously determined, these 
mechanisms do not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to ensure 
that Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a recovered NRM 
wolf population will be conserved (Williams 2004; 71 FR 43410, August 
1, 2006). In such situation, we will replace this final rule with an 
alternate final rule that retains the Act's protections in much of 
northwestern Wyoming, outside the National Parks, while wolves would be 
delisted in all other portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 6106, February 8, 
2007). We are moving forward with delisting the entire NRM DPS because 
we fully expect the requirements of the 2007 Wyoming statute will be 
satisfied, allowing the approved wolf management plan to be fully 
implemented. Thus, the following analysis considers the adequacy of the 
2007 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan.
    ``Trophy game'' status allows the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
(WYGFC) and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to regulate methods 
of take, hunting seasons, types of allowed take, and numbers of wolves 
that could be killed. Wyoming's management objective is to maintain at 
least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in the trophy area of 
northwestern Wyoming (Freudenthal 2007a). Wyoming will manage to 
maintain 7 of these breeding pairs outside the National Parks in 
northwestern Wyoming. Wyoming would manage wolves as it does other 
resident trophy game, including routine wolf population and health 
monitoring, regulation of take by the public, including defense of 
property, and agency control of problem wolves (Wyoming 2007). The 
Trophy Game Area in northwestern Wyoming (Freudenthal 2007a) 
encompasses 70% of the suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming (Oakleaf 2007) 
and 91% of the area is secure public land. In 2006 this area, excluding 
the National Parks, supported at least 25 packs, 15 breeding pairs, and 
175 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 2). The Trophy Game Area 
designated by Wyoming is clearly large enough to support 15 breeding 
pairs and 150 wolves even if Yellowstone Park had none (a very unlikely 
scenario). Therefore the Trophy Game Area is large enough to maintain 
Wyoming's commitment to the NRM wolf metapopulation on its own.
    Wolves occurring in the portion of the State outside of the Trophy 
Game Area, which consists largely of habitat unsuitable for wolf pack 
establishment and persistence, will be designated as ``predatory 
animals'' and will be subject to unregulated human-caused mortality. 
Areas in Wyoming outside the trophy game area have not supported 
persistent wolf packs since 1995 (Service et al. 1999-2007, Figure 1, 
3). Wolves are unlike coyotes in that wolf behavior and reproductive 
biology results in wolves being extirpated in the face of extensive 
human-caused mortality. These types and levels of take would most 
likely prevent wolf packs from persisting in areas of Wyoming where 
they are classified as predatory animals.
    Wyoming regulations ensure that wolves will be managed to prevent 
the need for relisting in the future. The State of Wyoming has 
designated wolves as a Trophy Game Species within an area which is 
capable of supporting at least 15 breeding pairs (USFWS et al. 2007, 
Figure 3; Wyoming 2007, p. 1). The area includes: northwest Wyoming 
beginning at the junction of Wyoming Highway 120 and the Wyoming-
Montana State line; southerly along Wyoming Highway 120 to the Greybull 
River; southwesterly up said river to the Wood River; southwesterly up 
said river to the Shoshone National Forest boundary; southerly along 
said boundary to the Wind River Indian Reservation boundary; westerly, 
then southerly along said boundary to the Continental Divide; 
southeasterly along said divide to the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; 
westerly down said creek to Boulder Creek; westerly down said creek to 
the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary; northwesterly along said 
boundary to its intersection with U.S. Highway 189-191; northwesterly 
along said highway to the intersection with U.S. Highway 26-89-191; 
northerly along said highway to Wyoming Highway 22 in the town of 
Jackson; westerly along said highway to the Wyoming-Idaho State line; 
north along said State line to the Wyoming-Montana State line; north, 
then east along said State line to Wyoming Highway 120. As stated 
above, the Trophy Game Area is

[[Page 10550]]

approximately 91% secure public lands and represents only about 12 
percent of Wyoming, but contains approximately 70 percent of the 
suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming (Oakleaf 2007). Conversely, the area 
of Wyoming outside the Trophy Game Area is not considered significant 
to the recovery of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains (72 FR 
6118; February 8, 2007; Oakleaf et al. 2006); nearly all wolves that 
have attempted to occupy the portion of Wyoming outside the Trophy Game 
Area have been involved in conflicts and lethally removed under Service 
management; and the stagnant distribution patterns since recovery 
objectives were achieved indicate there is limited suitable habitat in 
Wyoming for the NRM DPS wolf population to expand significantly beyond 
the three core recovery areas (72 FR 6120, February 8, 2007).
    Within the Trophy Game Area, the WYGFC through the WYGF will have 
management authority over wolves outside the National Parks and will 
manage wolves and set harvest regulations in such a way as to assure 
that the management targets of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 
150 wolves for the State, with at least 7 of these breeding pairs in 
Wyoming outside the National Park Units, are met. The maintenance of 
wolf breeding pairs outside the National Parks is important to 
supplement those in the National Parks that, according to YNP policy, 
will fluctuate naturally and possibly widely, and to ensure the GYA is 
maintained at a level and distribution (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006) 
that encourages the incorporation of naturally dispersing wolves into 
the GYA system, and that suitable habitat in northwestern Wyoming is 
occupied by wolf packs. The State of Wyoming will also monitor wolves 
under the State's predatory animal status, including the number and 
location of all wolves that are taken (Wyoming 2007).
    This regulatory framework provides assurance that Wyoming's share 
of the NRM DPS will be maintained above recovery levels into the 
foreseeable future and that most suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming will 
be occupied by at least 150 wolves in at least 15 wolf breeding pairs. 
This type of management framework is consistent in its general 
principles with the frameworks in the States of Minnesota, Michigan, 
Wisconsin, Montana, and Idaho that have been accepted as adequate 
regulatory frameworks for wolves after de-listing. The Wyoming 
regulatory framework provides adequate assurances that a viable wolf 
population will be maintained in the NRM DPS.
    Washington--Wolves in Washington are listed as endangered under the 
State's administrative code (WAC 232.12.014; these provisions may be 
viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/). Under Washington's 
administrative code (WAC 232.12.297), ``endangered'' means any wildlife 
species native to the State of Washington that is seriously threatened 
with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the State. Endangered species in the State of Washington are 
protected from hunting, possession, and malicious harassment, unless 
such taking has been authorized by rule of the Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Commission (RCW 77.15.120; these provisions can be viewed at: 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/). Following the delisting of the NRM DPS, 
those areas in Washington included in the NRM DPS will remain listed as 
endangered by Washington State. The areas in Washington not included in 
the NRM DPS will remain listed as endangered under both State and 
Federal law.
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf family 
units in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998), 
agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date, no 
individual wolves or packs have ever been documented there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999; Jimenez et al. in prep). Intervening unsuitable habitat 
makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM DPS have dispersed to 
the North Cascades of Washington in recent history.
    Washington State does not currently have a recovery or management 
plan for wolves, but the State has established a wolf working group 
advisory committee and is preparing a State gray wolf conservation and 
management plan (see http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/). 
Interagency Wolf Response Guidelines have been developed by the 
Service, WDFW, and USDA WS to provide a checklist of response actions 
for five situations that may arise in the future (can be viewed at 
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/contacts.htm). Wolf 
management in Washington may be beneficial to the NRM DPS, but is not 
necessary for achieving or maintaining a recovered population of wolves 
in the NRM DPS.
    Oregon--The gray wolf has been classified as endangered under the 
Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 496.171-192) since 1987. The law 
requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to conserve the 
species in Oregon. Anticipating the reestablishment of wolves in Oregon 
from the growing Idaho population, the Commission directed the 
development of a wolf conservation and management plan to meet the 
requirements of both the Oregon Endangered Species Act and the Oregon 
Wildlife Policy. ORS 496.012 states in part: ``It is the policy of the 
State of Oregon that wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious 
depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum 
recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations 
of the citizens of this State.''
    In February 2005, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted 
the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Oregon 2005). The 
plan was built to meet the five delisting criteria identified in State 
statutes and administrative rules: (1) The species is not now (and is 
not likely in the foreseeable future to be) in danger of extinction in 
any significant portion of its range in Oregon or in danger of becoming 
endangered; (2) the species' natural reproductive potential is not in 
danger of failure due to limited population numbers, disease, 
predation, or other natural or human-related factors affecting its 
continued existence; (3) most populations are not undergoing imminent 
or active deterioration of range or primary habitat; (4) 
overutilization of the species or its habitat for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not occurring or 
likely to occur; and (5) existing State or Federal programs or 
regulations are adequate to protect the species and its habitat.
    The Plan describes measures the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW) will take to conserve and manage the species. This 
includes actions that could be taken to protect livestock from wolf 
depredation and address human safety concerns. The following summarizes 
the primary components of the plan:
    <bullet> Wolves that naturally disperse into Oregon will be 
conserved and managed under the plan. Wolves will not be captured 
outside of Oregon and released in the State.
    <bullet> Wolves may be considered for Statewide delisting once the 
population reaches four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years in 
eastern Oregon (note--the boundary between east and west wolf 
management zones is defined by U.S. Highway 97 from the Columbia River 
to the junction of U.S. Highway 20, southeast on U.S. Highway 20 to the 
junction with U.S. Highway 395, and south on U.S. Highway 395 to the 
California border). Four breeding pairs are considered the minimum 
conservation population objective, also described as Phase 1. The plan 
calls for managing wolves in western Oregon, as

[[Page 10551]]

if the species remains listed, until the western Oregon wolf population 
reaches four breeding pairs. This means, for example, that a landowner 
would be required to obtain a permit to address depredation problems 
using injurious harassment.
    <bullet> While the wolf remains listed as a State endangered 
species, the following will be allowed: (1) Wolves may be harassed 
(e.g., shouting, firing a shot in the air) to distract a wolf from a 
livestock operation or area of human activity; (2) harassment that 
causes injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or bean bag projectiles) 
may be employed to prevent depredation, but only with a permit; (3) 
wolves may be relocated to resolve an immediate localized problem from 
an area of human activity (e.g., wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) 
to the nearest wilderness area (relocation will be done by ODFW or 
USDA-WS personnel); (4) livestock producers who witness a wolf `in the 
act' of attacking livestock on public or private land must have a 
permit before taking any action that would cause harm to the wolf; and 
(5) wolves involved in chronic depredation may be killed by ODFW or 
USDA-WS personnel; however, nonlethal methods will be emphasized and 
employed first in appropriate circumstances. Under this final delisting 
rule, wolves will remain federally listed in the western two thirds of 
Oregon, and neither of these two agencies have authority to use lethal 
removal in the portions of Oregon outside of the NRM DPS.
    <bullet> Once the wolf is State-delisted, more options are 
available to address wolf-livestock conflict. While there are five to 
seven breeding pairs, landowners with a permit may kill a wolf involved 
in chronic depredation. Five to seven breeding pairs is considered the 
management population objective, or Phase 2.
    <bullet> When there are more than seven breeding pairs, under Phase 
3, a limited controlled hunt could be allowed to decrease chronic 
depredation or reduce pressure on wild ungulate populations.
    <bullet> The plan provides wildlife managers with adaptive 
management strategies to address wolf predation problems on wild 
ungulates if confirmed wolf predation leads to declines in localized 
herds.
    <bullet> In the unlikely event that a person is attacked by a wolf, 
the plan describes the circumstances under which Oregon's criminal code 
and the Federal Endangered Species Act would allow harassing, harming 
or killing of wolves where necessary to avoid imminent, grave injury. 
Such an incident must be reported to law enforcement officials.
    <bullet> A strong information and education program is proposed to 
ensure anyone with an interest in wolves is able to learn more about 
the species and stay informed about wildlife management activities.
    <bullet> Several research projects are identified as necessary for 
future success of long-term wolf conservation and management. 
Monitoring and radio-collaring wolves are listed as critical components 
of the plan both for conservation and communication with Oregonians.
    <bullet> An economic analysis provides estimates of costs and 
benefits associated with wolves in Oregon and wolf conservation and 
management.
    <bullet> Finally, the plan requires annual reporting to the 
Commission on program implementation.
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, as approved by the Oregon Fish and 
Wildlife Commission in February 2005, called for three legislative 
actions, which the 2005 Oregon Legislative Assembly considered, but did 
not adopt. These actions were: (1) Changing the legal status of the 
gray wolf from protected non-game wildlife to a ``special status 
mammal'' under the ``game mammal'' definition in ORS 496.004; (2) 
amending the wildlife damage statute (ORS 498.012) to remove the 
requirement for a permit to lethally take a gray wolf caught in the act 
of attacking livestock; and (3) creating a State-funded program to pay 
compensation for wolf-caused losses of livestock and to pay for 
proactive methods to prevent wolf depredation. As a result, the Fish 
and Wildlife Commission amended the Oregon Plan in December 2005 and 
rather than dropping the proposals chose to move them from the body of 
the Plan to an appendix. The Commission remains on record as calling 
for those legislative enhancements; however, implementation of the 
Oregon Plan does not depend upon them.
    Under the Oregon Wolf Management Plan, the gray wolf will remain 
classified as endangered under State law until the conservation 
population objective for eastern Oregon is reached (i.e., four breeding 
pairs for 3 consecutive years). Once the objective is achieved, the 
State delisting process will be initiated. Following delisting from the 
State Endangered Species Act, wolves will retain their classification 
as nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375.
    Utah--When federally delisted, wolves in that portion of the NRM 
DPS in Utah will remain listed as protected wildlife under State law. 
In Utah, wolves fall under three layers of protection-(1) State code, 
(2) Administrative Rule and (3) Species Management Plan. The Utah Code 
can be found at http://www.le.State.ut.us/code/TITLE23/TITLE23.htm. The 
relevant administrative rules that restrict wolf take can be found at 
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-003.htm and http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-011.htm. These regulations 
restrict all potential taking of wolves in Utah, including that portion 
in the NRM DPS. Wolf management in Utah will have no effect on the 
recovered wolf population that resides in suitable habitat in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 12, 
which directed the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to draft 
a wolf management plan for review, modification, and adoption by the 
Utah Wildlife Board, through the Regional Advisory Council process. In 
April 2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed UDWR to develop a proposal 
for a wolf working group to assist the agency in this endeavor. The 
UDWR created the Wolf Working Group in the summer of 2003. The Wolf 
Working Group is composed of 13 members that represent diverse public 
interests regarding wolves in Utah.
    On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife Board passed the Utah Wolf 
Management Plan (Utah 2005). The goal of the Plan is to manage, study, 
and conserve wolves moving into Utah while avoiding conflicts with the 
elk and deer management objectives of the Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing 
livestock depredation; and protecting wild ungulate populations in Utah 
from excessive wolf predation. The Utah Plan can be viewed at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/. Its purpose is to guide management of 
wolves in Utah during an interim period from Federal delisting until 
2015, or until it is determined that wolves have become established in 
Utah, or the assumptions of the plan (political, social, biological, or 
legal) change. During this interim period, immigrating wolves will be 
studied to determine where they are most likely to settle without 
conflict.
    Tribal Plans--Approximately 20 Tribes are within the NRM DPS. 
Currently perhaps only 1-2 wolf packs are entirely dependent on Tribal 
lands for their existence in the NRM DPS. In the NRM DPS about 32,942 
km\2\ (12,719 mi\2\) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal land. In the NRM 
DPS wolf occupied habitat, about 4,696 km\2\ (1,813 mi\2\) (2 percent) 
is Tribal land (Service et al. 2006; 71 FR 6645, February 8, 2006). 
Therefore, while Tribal lands can contribute some habitat for wolf 
packs

[[Page 10552]]

in the NRM, they will be relatively unimportant to maintaining a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. Many wolf packs live in areas 
of public land where Tribes have various treaty rights, such as 
wildlife harvest. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming propose to incorporate 
Tribal harvest into their assessment of the potential surplus of wolves 
available for public harvest in each State, each year, to ensure that 
the wolf population is maintained above recovery levels. Utilization of 
those Tribal treaty rights will not significantly impact the wolf 
population or reduce it below recovery levels because a small portion 
of the wolf population could be affected by Tribal harvest or lives in 
areas subject to Tribal harvest rights.
    The overall regulatory framework analyzed in this rule depends 
entirely on State-led management of wolves that are primarily on lands 
where resident wildlife is traditionally managed by the State. Any 
wolves that may establish themselves on Tribal lands will be in 
addition to those managed by the State outside Tribal reservations. At 
this point in time, only the Wind River Tribe (Wind River Tribe 2007) 
has an approved tribal wolf management plan for its lands. In addition, 
Nez Perce Tribe had a Service wolf management plan approved in 1995, 
but that plan applied only to listed wolves, and it was approved by the 
Service so the Tribe could take a portion of the responsibility for 
wolf monitoring and management in Idaho under the 1994 special 
regulation under section 10(j). No other Tribe has submitted a wolf 
management plan. In November 2005, the Service requested information 
from all the Tribes in the NRM regarding their Tribal regulations and 
any other relevant information regarding Tribal management or concerns 
about wolves (Bangs 2004). We reviewed all responses and incorporated 
Tribal comments on the 2007 delisting proposal into this final rule.
    Summary--State wolf management plans for Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (assuming implementation of the Wyoming State wolf management 
law) commit to regulation of wolf mortality over conflicts with 
livestock after delisting in a manner similar to that used by the 
Service to reduce conflicts with private property, and that would 
assume the maintenance of wolf populations above recovery levels. These 
State plans have committed to using a definition of a wolf pack that 
approximates the Service's current breeding pair definition. Based on 
that definition, they have committed to maintaining at least 10 
breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State by managing for a safety margin 
of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in each State. In 
addition, Wyoming has committed to manage for at least 7 of these wolf 
breeding pairs outside the National Parks. These States are to control 
problem wolves in a manner similar to that used by the Service for the 
past 20 years (Service 1988, p. 8; 1994, pp. 2, 9-12; 1999, pp. 39-40; 
70 FR 1306-1311, January 6, 2005) and use adaptive management 
principles to regulate and balance wolf population size and 
distribution with livestock conflict and public tolerance. When wolf 
populations are above the State management objective of 15 breeding 
pairs, wolf control measures may be more liberal. If wolf populations 
ever get below 15 breeding pairs, wolf control as directed by each 
State will be more conservative to bring about population increases. 
The State wildlife agencies have experienced professional staff with 
expertise in wildlife monitoring, research and management, veterinarian 
and forensic science, problem wildlife management and control, 
education, outreach, administration, regulations and laws, and law 
enforcement that can successfully implement the States' commitments for 
science-based wolf management.
    With delisting the wolf in the NRM DPS, the major differences 
between the previous Federal management and the new State management of 
problem wolves will be the slightly increased authority given to 
private landowners and grazing permittees to take wolves in the act of 
attacking or molesting livestock or other domestic animals, and public 
harvest programs to help regulate wolf distribution and density to meet 
State management objectives.
    Private take of problem wolves under State regulations will replace 
some agency control, but we believe this will not substantially 
increase or decrease the overall numbers of problem wolves killed each 
year because of conflicts with livestock or affect the recovered status 
of the NRM DPS. Because the overall rate of depredation and conflict is 
dependent on the wolf population level (Service et al. 2007, Tables 4, 
5), we believe overall rates of lethal control will remain stable and 
increased legal take by private individuals will simply replace some of 
the take of problem wolves by public agencies. In contrast to the 
Service recovery program, State and Tribal management programs will 
incorporate regulated public harvest when wolf populations in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming are safely above recovery levels of 15 or more 
breeding pairs (in Wyoming 7 or more of those breeding pairs must be 
outside the National Parks). This approach will help manage wolf 
distribution and numbers to minimize conflicts with humans. States 
routinely use regulated public harvest to help successfully manage and 
conserve other large predators and wild ungulates under their 
management authority. The adjacent States of Utah, Oregon, and 
Washington all have in place laws that would remain in effect to 
protect wolves after delisting. Utah and Oregon have adopted wolf 
management plans, and Washington is currently preparing one. For the 
purposes of this rule there is no need for the Service to review or 
approve state wolf management plans outside of Montana, Idaho, or 
Wyoming. The adjacent States' management strategies should not impact 
the core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming, because of the 
distance of those states from the core recovery areas. Any wolf 
breeding pairs that do become established in other States in the NRM 
DPS, while not necessary to maintain the NRM DPS above recovery levels, 
can only have a positive effect on maintaining wolf population recovery 
in the NRM DPS.
    The States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have successfully managed 
resident ungulate populations for decades and maintain them at 
densities that would easily support a recovered wolf population. They 
and Federal land management agencies will continue to manage for high 
ungulate populations in the foreseeable future. Native ungulate 
populations also are maintained at high levels by Washington, Oregon, 
and Utah in the portions of those States that are in the NRM DPS. No 
foreseeable condition would cause a decline in ungulate populations 
significant enough to affect a recovered wolf population.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf--The primary determinant of 
the long-term status of gray wolf populations in the U.S. will be human 
attitudes toward this large predator. These attitudes are largely based 
on the real and perceived conflicts between human activities and values 
and wolves, such as depredation on livestock and pets, competition for 
surplus wild ungulates between hunters and wolves, concerns for human 
safety, wolves' symbolic representation of wildness and ecosystem 
health, killing of wolves by people, and the wolf-related traditions of 
Native American Tribes or local culture.
    In recent decades, national support has been evident for wolf 
recovery and

[[Page 10553]]

reintroduction in the NRM (Service 1994, pp. 5:11-111). With the 
continued help of private conservation organizations, the States and 
Tribes will continue to foster public support to maintain recovered 
wolf populations in the NRM DPS. We have concluded that the State 
management regulations that will go into effect when wolves in the NRM 
DPS are delisted will further enhance local public support for wolf 
recovery. State management provides a larger and more effective local 
organization and a more familiar means for dealing with these conflicts 
(Mech 1995, pp. 275-276; Williams et al. 2002, p. 582; Bangs et al. 
2004, p. 102; Bangs et al. in press). State wildlife organizations have 
specific departments and staff dedicated to providing accurate and 
science-based public education, information, and outreach (Idaho 2007, 
p. 23-24, Appendix A; Wyoming 2007, p. 28-29; Montana 2003, p. 90-91).
    Genetic Considerations--The genetic diversity of wolves in North 
America was reduced by the historic large-scale extirpation of wolves 
in North America (Leonard et al. 2005, p. 9), but populations have 
rebounded from previously low levels and even the relatively inbred 
Mexican wolf (Fredrickson et al. 2007) is not threatened by reduced 
genetic diversity alone. Even a wolf population on Isle Royale National 
Park that started from possibly 2 founders in 1949 and remained very 
small (<50 wolves) has persisted until the present time (Boitani 2003, 
p. 330). The wolf population on the island-like Kenai Peninsula, 
Alaska, was recolonized by a few wolves in the 1960's. That population 
is removed from other populations, has remained small (<200 wolves), is 
hunted and trapped, doesn't appear threatened (Peterson et al. 1994, p. 
1), and is genetically fit (Talbot and Scribner 1997, p. 20-21). Small 
wolf populations are unlikely to be threatened solely by loss of 
genetic diversity, but that possibility exists (Boitani 2003, p. 330). 
Many extant wolf populations have persisted for many decades or 
centuries with low genetic diversity (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-03, 330-1; 
Fritts and Carbyn 1996). Furthermore, from a purely biological 
perspective, the NRM DPS is just the southern extension of a vast North 
American wolf population consisting of many tens of thousands of 
individuals.
    We asked a wolf genetics expert who was a peer reviewer on the 
Service's 2006 proposal to delist the WGL wolf population (Wayne 2006), 
whose team we had contracted to do a genetic analysis of wolves in the 
NRM, to comment on our proposal (Wayne 2007). We did not ask him to be 
one of the peer reviewers for this proposal because of that potential 
conflict of interest. He and his colleagues mistakenly believed the 
Service's recovery goals were to have only 10 breeding pairs and 100 
wolves in each of the three States and were unaware of the States' 
intentions to manage for about 883-1,250 wolves in mid-winter. Based on 
this belief they concluded that the YNP wolf population was less than 
what would be required for maintaining a genetically healthy, self-
sustaining metapopulation. They believed it was too low given the wolf 
population's current higher population level, and that the current 
genetic isolation of YNP and potentially the GYA from the other 
recovery areas and Canada would reduce the genetic integrity of the YNP 
segment of the NRM wolf population, within 100 years. We carefully 
examined all those claims and determined those related to the GYA were 
based on faulty assumptions, unjustifiably pessimistic forecasts, and 
therefore we respectfully disagreed with them for the reasons stated 
below.
    Genetic diversity throughout the NRM is currently very high (Forbes 
and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt et al. 
2007, p. 19) and likely to remain so especially in the northwestern 
Montana and central Idaho core recovery areas, because wolf packs are 
relatively contiguous throughout those areas and into Canada where wolf 
packs are numerous and contiguous northward to the Arctic Ocean 
(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1). However, the theoretical modeling by 
von Holdt et al. (2007; Figure 8) indicated that under a worst-case 
scenario in 100 years the genetic diversity of wolves in YNP would be 
reduced if it were totally isolated from the GYA and the GYA was 
totally isolated from the other core recovery areas. That lower genetic 
diversity might result in an average of 4 pups being born into each 
pack rather than the current 5 per pack. That would certainly not 
threaten or even reduce the number of wolves in YNP which will continue 
to have an adult survival rate of around 80%, but lower pup production 
might theoretically reduce the rates of wolf dispersal from the Park. 
However, the model's assumptions are misleading. Delisting will not 
affect wolves in YNP and YNP is at the center of the GYA core recovery 
area that is composed of wolves in YNP as well as those outside of YNP 
in northwestern Wyoming, southwestern Montana, and to a lesser extent 
southeastern Idaho. Modeling and field data suggest that low-density 
wolf populations have a reduced probability of finding mates (Hurford 
et al. 2006; Brainerd et al. 2008), so having a high-density core 
refugium for wolves like YNP as the cornerstone of the GYA core 
recovery area is fortuitous and provides for a much larger and well-
dispersed wolf population than the one modeled and upon which the von 
Holdt et al. (2007) paper based their predictions.
    Wolves have naturally dispersed into the GYA. In 1992, an 
uncollared black wolf from northwestern Montana was shot just south of 
YNP (Fain 2007, p. 1). Another black wolf was filmed in YNP a month 
before that shooting, but has never been reported again. It is unknown 
if it was the same or a different wolf. Since 1995, we have documented 
dispersal of wolves to the GYA on at least four occasions by radio-
collared wolves from Idaho. One was likely the alpha male of the 
Greybull pack near Meeteetse, WY. Recently a dispersing radio-collared 
male from Idaho has paired with a female in YNP (Service 2007b). Two 
other radio-collared wolves dispersed into the GYA from Idaho but were 
not suspected of breeding. Other wolves from Idaho or northwestern 
Montana have undoubtedly made the journey to the GYA since 1995 but 
have not been detected simply because they were not uniquely marked or 
tracked with radio telemetry (an average of only 30% of the wolf 
population is marked). However, while genetic studies are continuing, 
at this time no genes from offspring of a wolf dispersing from central 
Idaho or northwestern Montana into the GYA have been detected in the 
samples that have been analyzed (Wayne 2007). In other words, although 
4-12 individual wolves have naturally dispersed into the GYA, to date 
little, if any, of their DNA has become incorporated into the GYA 
portion of the NRM DPS. If no new genes ever entered the GYA in the 
next 100 years (either naturally or by agency relocations), the GYA 
wolf population's currently high genetic diversity would be reduced, 
but not to the point the GYA wolf population would be threatened 
because other wolf populations have persisted at lower levels and with 
lower genetic diversity for decades or centuries.
    The potential lack of genetic connectivity between wolves in YNP 
and wolves in the rest of the NRM DPS is not considered a threat under 
the Act's criteria for persistence, because much smaller extant wolf 
populations with much lower genetic diversity have persisted for 
decades or even centuries (See Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 33;

[[Page 10554]]

Boitiani 2003, pp. 330-335; Liberg 2005, pp. 5-6 for examples). 
Furthermore, if wolves select breeders for genetic differences, as data 
indicate (wolves have a strong tendency to select mates that will 
minimize inbreeding) (Bensch et al. 2006, p. 72; vonHoldt et al. 2007, 
p. 1), then future dispersers into a system experiencing genetic 
inbreeding would be much more likely to have their genes strongly 
selected for and incorporated into the inbred population. In addition, 
Montana (2003, p. 35), Idaho (2007, p. 20), and Wyoming (2007, p. 17) 
committed to foster successful dispersal by maintaining a widely-
dispersed wolf population over 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves, 
continuing to work toward resolving wildlife connectivity issues in the 
NRM DPS, including the maintenance of traditional ranching/open space, 
and if necessary relocate wolves or use other measures if reduced 
genetic diversity ever threatened wolf population recovery. Many small 
populations with low genetic diversity expanded rapidly when human 
persecution stopped (Boitani 2003, pp. 317-340; Fritts and Carbyn 1996, 
pp. 31-33). As a final safeguard, which is highly unlikely to be 
needed, relocation has proven to be a relatively simple procedure. 
Genetic rescue, improved pup production, and population increases have 
occurred in severely inbred small wolf populations as a result of the 
incorporation of one or two new genetic lines/individuals (Vila et al. 
2003, p. 91; Liberg et al. 2004, p. 17; Liberg 2005, pp. 5-6; Mills 
2006, pp. 195-96; Fredrickson et al. 2007, p. 2365).
    We agree with the conclusions of vonHoldt et al.'s (2007, pp. 18-
19) that ``these limitations can potentially be addressed by management 
actions such as increased protection, habitat restoration, and 
population augmentation,'' all things Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have 
already committed to do in their wolf management plans. We also agree 
that genetic data should be incorporated into long-term wolf 
conservation efforts and are confident the States will consider all the 
recommendations made by vonHoldt et al. (2007, p. 19) and other 
scientific literature when they manage wolf numbers and distribution in 
the NRM DPS.
    Climate Change--While there is much debate about the rates at which 
carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean temperatures 
will rise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 
group of leading climate scientists commissioned by the United Nations, 
concluded there is a general consensus among the world's best 
scientists that climate change is occurring (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change 2001, pp. 2-3; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
2007, p. 4). The twentieth century was the warmest in the last 1,000 
years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2-3) with global mean surface 
temperature increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (0.7 to 1.4 
degrees Fahrenheit). These increases in temperature were more 
pronounced over land masses as evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees 
Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in North America since 
the 1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p. 96; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411). 
According to the IPCC, warmer temperatures will increase 1.1 to 6.4 
degrees Celsius (2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, pp. 10-11). The 
magnitude of warming in the NRM has been particularly great, as 
indicated by an 8-day advance in the appearance of spring phenological 
indicators in Edmonton, Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 
400). The hydrologic regime in the NRM also has changed with global 
climate change, and is projected to change further (Bartlein et al. 
1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-
224). Under global climate change scenarios, the NRM may eventually 
experience milder, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers (Bartlein 
et al. 1997, p. 786). Additionally, the pattern of snowmelt runoff also 
may change, with a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 
411) and an earlier peak (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224), so that a 
lower proportion of the annual discharge will occur during spring and 
summer.
    Even with these changes, climate change should not threaten the NRM 
wolf population. Wolves are habitat generalists and next to humans are 
the most widely distributed land mammal on earth. Wolves live in every 
habitat type in the Northern Hemisphere that contains ungulates, and 
once ranged from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean in North America. 
The NRM DPS is roughly in the middle of historic wolf distribution in 
North America, so wolves could easily adapt to the slightly warmer and 
drier conditions that are predicted with climate change, including any 
northward expansion of diseases, parasites, new prey, or competitors or 
reductions in species currently at or near the southern extent of their 
range.
    Changing climate conditions have the potential to impact wolf prey. 
However, the extent and rate to which ungulate populations will be 
impacted is difficult to foresee with any level of confidence. One 
logical consequence of climate change could be a reduction in the 
number of elk, deer, moose, and bison dying over winter, thus 
maintaining a higher overall prey base for wolves (Wilmers and Getz 
2005, p. 574; Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). Furthermore, increased 
over-winter survival would likely result in overall increases and more 
resiliency in ungulate populations, thereby providing more prey for 
wolves.
    Catastrophic Events--The habitat model/PVA by Carroll et al. (2003, 
p. 543) analyzed environmental stochasticity and predicted it was 
unlikely to threaten wolf persistence in the GYA. We also considered 
catastrophic and stochastic events to the extent possible. None of 
these factors are thought to pose a significant risk to wolf recovery 
in the foreseeable future. With regard to wildfires, which humans often 
view as catastrophic events, large mobile species such as wolves and 
their ungulate prey usually are not adversely impacted.Wildfires in the 
NRM often lead to an increase in ungulate food supplies and an increase 
in ungulate numbers, which in turn supports increased wolf numbers. 
Wolves are an exceptionally resilient species.
    Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure--When human-caused mortality 
rates are low, packs contain older individuals. Older experienced 
individuals (5-7 yrs old) have gained their maximum body size and 
weight. They help maintain traditions (e.g., hunting bison) in a pack 
and are more successful at killing very large prey. They also help 
stabilize their pack's social structure and can more successfully 
defend their territory from neighboring wolf packs (Smith 2007a). All 
these effects will continue in areas like YNP, GTNP, GNP, the 
wilderness areas surrounding those Parks, and the wilderness areas and 
most remote portions of central Idaho and northwestern Montana, where 
human-caused mortality is relatively low. These ``natural'' social 
structures will continue unaltered in those areas after wolves are 
delisted. However, wolves in much of the NRM DPS will be constantly 
interacting with livestock and people and will not be at biological 
carrying capacity or maximum density. In addition, regulated hunting 
will be allowed by the States and that will increase wolf mortality 
rates. Wolf packs have high rates of natural turnover (Mech 2006, p. 
1482) and quickly adapt to changes in pack social structure (Brainerd 
et al. 2008). Higher rates of human-caused mortality also may simply 
replace some forms of

[[Page 10555]]

natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 185-6). Thus the potential 
effects caused by natural wolf pack dynamics in much of the NRM DPS 
will be moderated to varying degrees by conflicts with humans and rates 
of human-caused mortality (Garrott et al. 2005; pp. 7-9; Campbell et 
al. 2006, p. 363). Higher rates of human-caused mortality outside 
protected areas will result in different wolf pack size and structure 
than that in protected areas, but wolves in many parts of the world, 
including most of North America, experience various levels of human-
caused mortality and the associated disruption in natural processes and 
wolf social structure without ever threatening the population (Boitani 
2003). Therefore, while social structure disruption may occur in the 
future, it will not threaten the wolf with extinction in the 
foreseeable future.

Summary

    No manmade or natural factors threaten wolf population recovery in 
the NRM DPS now or in the foreseeable future. Public attitudes toward 
wolves have improved greatly over the past 30 years, and we expect 
that, given adequate continued management of conflicts, those attitudes 
will continue to support wolf restoration. The State wildlife agencies 
have professional education, information, and outreach components and 
are to present balanced science-based information to the public that 
will continue to foster general public support for wolf restoration and 
the necessity of conflict resolution to maintain public tolerance of 
wolves. Additionally, any wolf genetic viability, interbreeding 
coefficients or changes in wolf pack social structure are unlikely to 
threaten the wolf population in the NRM DPS in the foreseeable future, 
but if the GYA population segment was threatened that issue could be 
easily resolved by reintroduction or other deliberate management 
actions, as promised by the States, if it ever becomes necessary.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

    Is the Species Threatened or Endangered throughout ``All'' of Its 
Range--As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat 
factors to assess whether the gray wolf in the NRM DPS is threatened or 
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When 
considering the listing status of the species, the first step in the 
analysis is to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then the species is 
listed in its entirety. For instance, if the threats against a species 
are acting on only a portion of its range, but they are at such a large 
scale that they place the entire species in danger of extinction, we 
would list the entire species.
    Human-caused mortality is the most significant threat to the long-
term conservation of the gray wolf. Managing this source of mortality 
(i.e., overutilization of wolves for commercial, recreational, 
scientific and educational purposes and human predation) remains the 
primary challenge to maintaining a recovered wolf population into the 
foreseeable future. Montana and Idaho have wolf management plans to 
regulate human-caused mortality that are current and effective under 
State law and that the Service has determined are adequate to support a 
recovered wolf population. We have also determined that the 2007 
Wyoming wolf management plan, if implemented, will provide adequate 
regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovery wolf 
population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, pp. 1-3). As stated 
previously, the 2007 Wyoming wolf management plan automatically goes 
into effect upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming Secretary 
of State that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming wolf 
management law have been met (Freudenthal 2007b, pp. 1-3). Thus, while 
our determination is conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 
law being fully in effect within 20 days of publication of this rule 
and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming 
statutes (Hall 2007), we anticipate that this final certification will 
be issued within the specified time period. Therefore, we have 
concluded that each State will maintain its share and distribution of 
the NRM DPS wolf population above recovery levels for the foreseeable 
future.
    In terms of habitat, the amount and distribution of suitable 
habitat in public ownership provides, and will continue to provide, 
large core areas that contain high-quality habitat of sufficient size 
to anchor a recovered wolf population (assuming adequate regulatory 
mechanisms are in place). Our analysis of land-use practices shows 
these areas will maintain their suitability well into the foreseeable 
future, if not indefinitely. These areas also provide the necessary 
connectivity to support a three-part metapopulation. As illustrated in 
the GYA in 2005 and discussed in our 2006 12-month finding (71 FR 
43410, August 1, 2006), disease and parasites can play a temporary role 
in population stability. That said, as long as populations are managed 
above recovery levels, diseases or parasites are not likely to threaten 
the recovered NRM DPS at any point in the foreseeable future. Natural 
predation is likely to remain an insignificant factor in population 
dynamics into the foreseeable future. Finally, we believe that other 
natural or manmade factors are unlikely to threaten the recovered wolf 
population within the foreseeable future.
    Overall, we have determined that secure portions of Idaho, Montana 
and Wyoming contain habitat of sufficient quality, extent, and 
distribution to collectively support connected, stable populations of 
more than 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves that will not fall below 30 
breeding pairs and 300 wolves. Connectivity with wolves in Canada will 
provide further stability to this portion of the NRM DPS. Thus, the NRM 
DPS does not merit continued listing as threatened or endangered 
throughout ``all'' of its range.
    Is the Species Threatened or Endangered in a Significant Portion of 
Its Range--Having determined that the NRM DPS of gray wolf does not 
meet the definition of threatened or endangered in all of its range, we 
must next consider whether there are any significant portions of its 
range that are in danger of extinction or are likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, a formal 
opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, 
``The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a 
Significant Portion of Its Range' '' (U.S. DOI 2007). We have 
summarized our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying 
statutory language below. A portion of a species' range is significant 
if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to 
the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to 
the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
    The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or 
endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any 
portions of the range of the species that warrant further 
consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be 
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information

[[Page 10556]]

indicating that (i) the portions may be significant and (ii) the 
species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis 
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If 
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its 
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range 
that are unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions 
will not warrant further consideration.
    If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we 
then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered 
in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of 
the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more 
efficient for the Service to address the significance question first, 
or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a 
portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine 
whether the species is threatened or endangered there; if the Service 
determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a 
portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is 
significant.
    The terms ``resiliency,'' ``redundancy,'' and ``representation'' 
are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of 
the range (Schaffer and Stein 2000). Resiliency of a species allows the 
species to recover from periodic disturbance. A species will likely be 
more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that 
is distributed throughout the range of the species in such a way as to 
capture the environmental variability found within the range of the 
species. It is likely that the larger size of a population will help 
contribute to the viability of the species overall. Thus, a portion of 
the range of a species may make a meaningful contribution to the 
resiliency of the species if the area is relatively large and contains 
particularly high-quality habitat or if its location or characteristics 
make it less susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the 
range. When evaluating whether or how a portion of the range 
contributes to resiliency of the species, it may help to evaluate the 
historical value of the portion and how frequently the portion is used 
by the species. In addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency 
for other reasons--for instance, it may contain an important 
concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the 
species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, 
feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering.
    Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of 
safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not 
mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion 
of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the 
range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few 
populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether 
that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the 
conservation of the species.
    Adequate representation ensures that the species' adaptive 
capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be 
evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the 
species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially 
reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future 
environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute 
meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides 
genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species' 
habitat requirements.
    To determine whether the NRM DPS is threatened in any significant 
portion of its range, we first consider how the concepts of resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy apply to the conservation of this 
particular DPS. A number of available documents provide insight into 
this discussion, including the 1994 EIS on the reintroduction efforts 
in Central Idaho and the GYA (Service 1994), the 1987 recovery plan 
(Service 1987), our 2001/2002 review of the recovery goals (Bangs 
2002), Interagency Annual Reports (Service et al. 1989-2007), and 
numerous professional publications (Soule et al. 2003, p. 1238; Scott 
et al. 2005, p. 383; Vucetich et al. 2006, p. 1383; Carroll et al. 
2006, pp. 369-371; Waples et al. 2007, p. 964; see Service et al. 2007, 
pp. 213-230).
    In the case of this final rule, because we anticipate that the 2007 
Wyoming wolf management law will be fully in effect within 20 days of 
publication of this final rule and that the 2007 Wyoming wolf 
management plan will then be legally authorized by Wyoming statutes 
(Hall 2007), no portion of the NRM DPS currently occupied by persistent 
wolf packs (i.e., core recovery areas) warrants further consideration. 
Through our analysis (see Factor D section) we have determined that 
Montana's, Idaho's and Wyoming's plans meet the Act's requirements for 
delisting because these States have proposed management objectives that 
would maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State by 
managing for a safety margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 
150 wolves in each State. Thus, the absence of threats means that the 
species is neither endangered nor threatened in these portions of its 
range.
    However, if the provisions in the Wyoming wolf law are not 
fulfilled and the final certifications are not made within 20 days of 
publication of the final rule, we will withdraw this final rule before 
its effective date. In this situation, the 2003 Wyoming State law and 
wolf management plan would be the regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming. As 
we have previously determined, the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf 
management plan are not adequate to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population will be 
conserved (Williams 2004; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). Thus, we have 
decided to further consider the portion of the NRM DPS in northwestern 
Wyoming, outside the National Park Service lands, in the following 
analysis.
    Through an abundance of caution, we have identified two areas 
within the NRM DPS as warranting further consideration to determine if 
they are significant portions of the range that may be threatened or 
endangered. These areas include (1) northwest Wyoming, outside the 
National Park Service lands, and (2) portions of the NRM DPS within 97 
to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) of the habitat currently occupied by 
persistent wolf packs (i.e. core recovery areas) which are routinely 
used by dispersing wolves. For each of these areas we evaluate whether 
they are significant per the above definition and, if significant, we 
weigh whether they are threatened or endangered.
    The area of northwest Wyoming, outside the National Park Service 
lands, has long been considered critical to gray wolf recovery in the 
NRM (Service 1987; Service 1994; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). As 
outlined in our 12-month finding (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), we 
believe this area is important for maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining, and evolving representative meta-population in the NRM DPS 
into the foreseeable future. We have determined that a fundamental part 
of achieving recovery in the NRM DPS is a well-distributed number of 
wolf packs and individual wolves among the three States and the three 
recovery zones. The possible loss of wolves in northwest Wyoming, 
outside the National Park Service lands, would meaningfully affect the 
representation, resiliency, or

[[Page 10557]]

redundancy of the NRM DPS, making this portion of the range a 
significant portion of the range.
    The portion of the NRM DPS range in northwest Wyoming, outside the 
National Park Service lands, is considered significant because it 
contains a substantial proportion of the secure suitable habitat in 
Wyoming, and contains many of the persistent wolf packs that have been 
documented in Wyoming since 1995. In 2006 this area supported at least 
25 packs, 15 breeding pairs, and 175 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 
2). Under the provisions of the 2007 Wyoming wolf management plan, 
wolves in this portion of the NRM DPS range will be managed as trophy 
game (see Factor D) (Freudenthal 2007a). Areas in Wyoming outside the 
Trophy Game Area have not supported persistent wolf packs since 1995. 
The entire Trophy Game Area, as described in the 2007 Wyoming wolf 
management plan, is: Northwest Wyoming beginning at the junction of 
Wyoming Highway 120 and the Wyoming-Montana State line; southerly along 
Wyoming Highway 120 to the Greybull River; southwesterly up said river 
to the Wood River; southwesterly up said river to the Shoshone National 
Forest boundary; southerly along said boundary to the Wind River Indian 
Reservation boundary; westerly, then southerly along said boundary to 
the Continental Divide; southeasterly along said divide to the Middle 
Fork of Boulder Creek; westerly down said creek to Boulder Creek; 
westerly down said creek to the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundary; 
northwesterly along said boundary to its intersection with U.S. Highway 
189-191; northwesterly along said highway to the intersection with U.S. 
Highway 26-89-191; northerly along said highway to Wyoming Highway 22 
in the town of Jackson; westerly along said highway to the Wyoming-
Idaho State line; north along said state line to the Wyoming-Montana 
State line; north, then east along said State line to Wyoming Highway 
120. This area contains about 70% (31,207 km\2\ [12,049 mi\2\]) of the 
suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming. The significant portion of the NRM 
DPS range in northwest Wyoming to which this analysis applies is the 
Trophy Game Area, as described above, excluding the lands administered 
by the National Park Service.
    Within this portion of the NRM DPS range in northwestern Wyoming, 
managing human-caused mortality remains the primary challenge to 
maintaining a recovered wolf population in the foreseeable future. If 
this issue is adequately addressed, none of the other factors, 
individually or collectively, are likely to rise to the level of 
threatening or endangering the population within the foreseeable 
future.
    In 2004, we determined that problems with the 2003 Wyoming 
legislation and plan, and inconsistencies between the law and 
management plan did not allow us to approve Wyoming's approach to wolf 
management (Williams 2004). On August 1, 2006, we published a 12-month 
finding describing the reasons why the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf 
management plan did not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to 
assure maintenance of Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a 
recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR 43410).
    In 2007, the Wyoming legislature amended State law to address 
Service concerns. Following the change in State law, the WFGC approved 
a revised wolf management plan (Cleveland 2007). This plan was then 
approved by the Service as providing adequate regulatory protections to 
conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered NRM DPS into the foreseeable 
future (Hall 2007). We anticipate the stipulations in the Wyoming law 
will be met within the next 20 days following publication and prior to 
the rule being effective. Thus, based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, we determine that this significant 
portion of the range is not likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future (see Factor D).
    However, if the requirements of the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 
laws are not met, we will withdraw this final rule before its effective 
date and replace it with an alternate final rule maintaining the Act's 
1994 nonessential experimental population protections (Sec.  17.84 (i)) 
in northwestern Wyoming's significant portion of the NRM DPS (See 
Factor D). The alternate final rule would remove the gray wolf from the 
endangered and threatened species list in the remainder of the NRM DPS. 
We are moving forward with this rule as written because we view its 
withdrawal unlikely.
    Finally, we decided to assume that the portions of the NRM DPS 
within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) of the habitat currently occupied by 
persistent wolf packs (i.e. core recovery areas) which are routinely 
used by dispersing wolves warranted additional consideration out of an 
abundance of caution and based on the controversy concerning the status 
of the wolf in this area. Specifically, we considered: The portion of 
Montana east of I-15 and north of I-90; the portion of Idaho south of 
I-84; the remainder of Wyoming not considered above; and the portions 
of Oregon, Washington, and Utah within the NRM DPS. These boundaries 
are based largely upon our understanding of suitable habitat and the 
location of easily identifiable and understandable manmade markers and 
boundaries. The following provides our analysis of whether these 
portions of the range are significant.
    While wolves historically occurred over most of the NRM DPS, large 
portions of this area are no longer able to support viable wolf 
populations or breeding pairs. These areas include about 13 percent of 
theoretical suitable wolf habitat (as described by Oakleaf et al. 2006, 
p. 561). To the extent that any of these areas contain suitable 
habitat, they are small, fragmented areas where wolf packs cannot 
persist. This is why wolf recovery was never envisioned for these areas 
(Service 1987; Service 1994). We believe these areas are insignificant 
to maintaining the NRM wolf population's viability because they make 
virtually no contribution to the species' representation, resiliency, 
or redundancy.
    In light of the above, we conclude that none of the areas within 97 
to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) of the habitat currently occupied by 
persistent wolf packs (i.e. core recovery areas) constitute a 
significant portion of the range. These areas are not likely to 
meaningfully contribute to the representation, resiliency, or 
redundancy at a level such that their loss would result in a decrease 
in the ability to conserve the species. As noted above, if we determine 
that a portion of the range is not significant, we need not determine 
whether the species is threatened or endangered there.
    In summary, we have determined that none of the existing or 
potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are 
likely to cause the gray wolf in the NRM DPS to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or any 
significant portion of its range (assuming Wyoming's wolf management 
law and management plan are allowed to become effective). On the basis 
of this evaluation, we remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of the Rule

    Promulgation of this final rule will affect the protections 
afforded to the NRM gray wolf DPS under the Act. Taking, Interstate 
commerce, import, and export of wolves from the NRM DPS are no longer 
prohibited under the Act. Other State and Federal laws will still 
regulate take. In addition, with the removal of the NRM DPS from the 
List

[[Page 10558]]

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Federal agencies are no longer 
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that 
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. This regulation removes 
the now obsolete nonessential experimental regulations designed to 
reduce the regulatory burden in parts of the NRM DPS. No critical 
habitat has been designated for the NRM DPS: Thus, 50 CFR 17.95 is not 
modified by this regulation. Delisting the NRM DPS is expected to have 
positive effects in terms of management flexibility to the State, 
Tribal, and local governments.
    The full protections of the Act will still continue to apply to 
wolves in other portions of the lower 48 States outside the NRM DPS and 
the Western Great Lakes DPS. The Western Great Lakes DPS was 
established and removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in a separate action on February 8, 2007 (72 CFR 6052).

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in the 1988 reauthorization, 
requires us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to 
monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have 
recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a recovered species 
remains secure from risk of extinction after it no longer has the 
protections of the Act. Should relisting be required, we may make use 
of the emergency listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act 
to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of any recovered 
species.
    Monitoring Techniques--The NRM area was intensively monitored for 
wolves even before wolves were documented in Montana in the mid-1980s 
(Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 1982, pp. 379-381; Kaminski and Hansen 
1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, 
universities, and special interest groups assisted in those various 
efforts. Since 1979, wolves have been monitored using standard 
techniques including collecting, evaluating, and following-up on 
suspected observations of wolves or wolf signs by natural resource 
agencies or the public; howling or snow tracking surveys conducted by 
the Service, our university and agency cooperators, volunteers, or 
interested special interest groups; and by capturing, radio-collaring, 
and monitoring wolves. We only consider wolves and wolf packs as 
confirmed when Federal, State, or Tribal agency verification is made by 
field staff that can reliably identify wolves and wolf signs.
    The wolf monitoring system works in a hierarchical nature. 
Typically we receive a report (either directly or passed along by 
another agency) that wolves or their signs were observed. We make no 
judgment whether the report seems credible or not and normally just 
note the general location of that observation. Unless breeding results, 
reports of single animals are not important unless tied to other 
reports or unusual observations that elicit concern (e.g., a wolf 
reported feeding on a livestock carcass). Lone wolves can wander long 
distances over a short period of time (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 14-
15) and may be almost impossible to find again or confirm. However, the 
patterns and clusters of those individual reports are very informative 
and critical to subsequent agency decisions about where to focus agency 
searches for wolf pack activity.
    When we receive multiple reports of multiple individuals that 
indicate possible territoriality and pair bonding (the early stage of 
pack formation), or a report of multiple wolves that seems highly 
credible (usually made by a biologist or experienced outdoors-person), 
we typically notify the nearest Federal, State, or Tribal natural 
resource/land management agency and ask them to be on the alert for 
possible wolf activity during the normal course of their field 
activities. Once they locate areas of suspected wolf activity, we may 
ask experienced field biologists to search the area for wolf signs 
(tracks, howling, scats, ungulate kills). Depending on the type of 
activity confirmed, field crews may decide to capture and radio-collar 
the wolves. Radio-collared wolves are then located from the air 1 to 4 
times per month dependent on a host of factors including funding, 
personnel, aircraft availability, weather, and other priorities. At the 
end of the year, we compile agency-confirmed wolf observations to 
estimate the number and location of adult wolves and pups that were 
likely alive on December 31 of that year. These data are then 
summarized by packs to indicate overall population size, composition, 
and distribution. This level of wildlife monitoring is intensive and 
the results are relatively accurate estimates of wolf population 
distribution and structure (Service et al. 2007, Table 1-4, Figure 1-
4). This monitoring strategy has been used to estimate the NRM wolf 
population for over 20 years.
    Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as Washington, Oregon and 
Utah, have committed to continue monitoring wolf populations, according 
to their State wolf management plans (See State plans in Factor D) or 
in other cooperative agreements, using techniques similar to those used 
by the Service and its cooperators (which has included the States, 
Tribes, and USDA-WS--the same agencies that will be managing and 
monitoring wolves post-delisting). The States have committed to 
continue to conduct wolf population monitoring through the mandatory 5-
year PDM period that is required by the Act (Idaho 2002, p. 35; Montana 
2003, pp. 63, 78; Wyoming 2007, p. 12). The States also have committed 
to publish the results of their monitoring efforts in annual wolf 
reports as has been done since 1989 by the Service and its cooperators 
(Service et al. 1989-2007). Other States and Tribes within the DPS 
adjacent to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming also have participated in this 
interagency cooperative wolf monitoring system for at least the past 
decade, and their plans commit them to continue to report wolf activity 
in their State and coordinate those observations with other States. The 
annual reports have also documented all aspects of the wolf management 
program including staffing and funding, legal issues, population 
monitoring, control to reduce livestock and pet damage, research 
(predator-prey interactions, livestock-wolf conflict prevention, 
disease and health monitoring, publications, etc.) and public outreach.
    Service Review of the Post-Delisting Status of the Wolf 
Population--To ascertain wolf population distribution and structure and 
to analyze if the wolf population might require a Service-led status 
review (to determine whether it should again be listed under the Act), 
we intend to review the State and any Tribal annual wolf reports for 
the first five years after delisting. The status of the NRM wolf 
population will be estimated by estimating the numbers of packs, 
breeding pairs, and total numbers of wolves in mid-winter by State and 
by recovery area throughout the post-delisting monitoring period 
(Service et al 2007, Table 4, Figure 1). By evaluating the techniques 
used and the results of those wolf monitoring efforts, the Service can 
decide whether further action, including relisting is warranted. In 
addition, the States and Tribes are investigating other, perhaps more 
accurate and less expensive, ways to help estimate and describe wolf 
pack distribution and abundance (Kunkel et al. 2005; Ausband 2006; 
Mitchell et al. in press; Service et al. 2007, Figure 1, Table 4).

[[Page 10559]]

    Other survey methods and data can become the `biological 
equivalents' of the breeding pair definition currently used to measure 
recovery (Mitchell et al. in press). Those State and Tribal 
investigations also include alternative ways to estimate the status of 
the wolf population and the numbers of breeding pairs that are as 
accurate, but less expensive, than those that are currently used 
(Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. in press). Although not compelled by the 
Act, the State will likely continue to publish their annual wolf 
population estimates, in cooperation with National Parks and Tribes, 
after the 5-year mandatory wolf population monitoring required by the 
Act is over because of mandatory reporting requirements in Federal 
funding and grant programs and the high local and national public and 
scientific interest in NRM wolves.
    We fully recognize and anticipate that State and Tribal laws 
regarding wolves and State and Tribal management will change through 
time as new knowledge becomes available as the States and Tribes gain 
additional experience at wolf management and conservation. We will base 
any analysis of whether a status review and relisting are warranted 
upon the best scientific and commercial data available regarding wolf 
distribution, abundance, and threats in the NRM DPS. For the 5-year PDM 
period, the best source of that information will be the States' annual 
or other wolf reports and publications. We intend to post those annual 
State wolf reports and our annual review and comment on the status of 
the wolf population in the NRM DPS on our Web site (http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by approximately April 1 of each following 
year. During our annual analysis of the States' annual reports (which 
will continue for 5 years), we also intend to comment on any threats 
that may have increased during the previous year, such as significant 
changes in a State regulatory framework, habitat, diseases, decreases 
in prey abundance, increases in wolf-livestock conflict, or other 
natural and man-caused factors.
    Our analysis and response for PDM is to track changes in wolf 
abundance, distribution, and threats to the population. Four scenarios 
could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to 
determine if relisting is warranted including: (1) If the wolf 
population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf 
population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves 
in either Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at the end of the year; (2) if 
the portion of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls 
below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one 
of those States for 3 consecutive years; (3) if the wolf population in 
Wyoming outside of YNP falls below 7 breeding pairs for 3 consecutive 
years; or (4) if a change in State law or management objectives would 
significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. All such 
reviews would be made available for public review and comment, 
including peer review by select species experts. Additionally, if any 
of these scenarios occurred during the mandatory 5-year PDM period, the 
PDM period would be extended 5 additional years from that point in that 
State.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the 
following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 
implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. C. 3501 et 
seq.). The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3 (c) define a collection of 
information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by 
means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, 
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more 
persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more 
persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is 
addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of 
this definition, employees of the Federal Government are not included. 
The Service may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
    This rule does not contain any collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As proposed 
under the Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, populations will be 
monitored by Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in accordance with their Wolf 
Management Plans. We do not anticipate a need to request data or other 
information from 10 or more persons during any 12-month period to 
satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to 
collect information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or 
organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection 
approval from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
NEPA, need not be prepared in connection with actions adopted pursuant 
to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons 
for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule is 
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
coordinated the proposed rule and this final rule with the affected 
Tribes. Throughout several years of development of earlier related 
rules and the proposed rule, we have endeavored to consult with Native 
American tribes and Native American organizations in order to both (1) 
provide them with a complete understanding of the proposed changes, and 
(2) to understand their concerns with those changes. We have fully 
considered their comments during the development of this final rule. If 
requested, we will conduct additional consultations with Native 
American tribes and multitribal organizations subsequent to this final 
rule in order to

[[Page 10560]]

facilitate the transition to State and tribal management of gray wolves 
within the NRM DPS.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available upon request from the Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator 
(see ADDRESSES above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), the entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under MAMMALS in the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                  Vertebrate population
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range       where  endangered or        Status         When     Critical   Special
           Common name                Scientific name                                 threatened                           listed    habitat     rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
 Wolf, gray......................  Canis lupus.........   Holarctic..........   U.S.A., conterminous      E                  1, 6,        N/A        N/A
                                                                                (lower 48) States,                         13, 15,
                                                                                except: (1) Where                               35
                                                                                listed as an
                                                                                experimental population
                                                                                below; (2) Minnesota,
                                                                                Wisconsin, Michigan,
                                                                                eastern North Dakota
                                                                                (that portion north and
                                                                                east of the Missouri
                                                                                River upstream to Lake
                                                                                Sakakawea and east of
                                                                                the centerline of
                                                                                Highway 83 from Lake
                                                                                Sakakawea to the
                                                                                Canadian border),
                                                                                eastern South Dakota
                                                                                (that portion north and
                                                                                east of the Missouri
                                                                                River), northern Iowa,
                                                                                northern Illinois, and
                                                                                northern Indiana (those
                                                                                portions of IA, IL, and
                                                                                IN north of the
                                                                                centerline of
                                                                                Interstate Highway 80),
                                                                                and northwestern Ohio
                                                                                (that portion north of
                                                                                the centerline of
                                                                                Interstate Highway 80
                                                                                and west of the Maumee
                                                                                River at Toledo); and
                                                                                (3) Montana, Idaho,
                                                                                Wyoming, eastern
                                                                                Washington (that
                                                                                portion of Washington
                                                                                east of the Centerline
                                                                                of Highway 97 and
                                                                                Highway 17 north of
                                                                                Mesa and that portion
                                                                                of Washington east of
                                                                                the centerline of
                                                                                Highway 395 south of
                                                                                Mesa), eastern Oregon
                                                                                (portion of Oregon east
                                                                                of the centerline of
                                                                                Highway 395 and Highway
                                                                                78 north of Burns
                                                                                Junction and that
                                                                                portion of Oregon east
                                                                                of the centerline of
                                                                                Highway 95 south of
                                                                                Buirns Junction), and
                                                                                north-central Utah
                                                                                (that portion of Utah
                                                                                east of the centerline
                                                                                of Highway 84 and north
                                                                                of Highway 80). Mexico.
 Do..............................   ...... do..........   ...... do..........   U.S.A. (portions of AZ,   XN                   631        N/A   17.84(k)
                                                                                NM, and TX--see Sec.
                                                                                17.84(k)).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *


Sec.  17.84  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.84 by removing paragraphs (i) and (n).

    Dated: February 13, 2008.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 08-798 Filed 2-21-08; 9:49 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P